'’’EOLOGl 


IP  f  \ 
V«Mu 


BT  20  . H377 
Harris,  D.  Fisk. 
Calvinism 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/calvinismcontrar00harr_0 


CALVINISM 


Contrary  to  God’s  Word 

AND 

MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 

BY 

y 

D.  FISK  HARRIS. 


"It  is  too  frequent  a  custom  of  many  readers  to  applaud  or  censure  a  book  very 
highly ,  according  to  the  opinion  it  favors ,  not  according  to  the  reason  or  argu¬ 
ment  it  produces.  If  the  opinion  be  agreeable  to  the  sentiments  and  language 
of  any  particular  party  which  the  reader  has  chosen ,  the  arguments ,  though 
ever  so  common  or  trifling ,  are  pronounced  strong  and  cogent.  On  the  other 
hand ,  if  the  opinion  happen  to  be  near  akin  to  those  of  a  contrary  sect ,  then  the 
arguments  brought  to  support  it  are  all  trifling.  The  author  is  a  heretic, 
and  therefore  his  reasonings  must  needs  be  all  weak  and  insufficient  if  not, 
dangerous  and  destructive." — Isaac  Watts. 


Copyrighted  and  Published  by  the  Author. 

1890. 


Electrotyped  and  Printed  by 
Woman’s  Temperance  Publishing  Association, 
161  Ea  Salle  St.,  Chicago. 


PREFACE. 


The  title  of  this  work  sufficiently  explains  the  author’s 
purpose.  How  far  he  has  succeeded,  the  candid  reader  must 
judge. 

Were  it  not  for  the  conviction  that  each  generation  must 
examine  for  itself  the  foundations  upon  which  its  faith  rests ; 
that  the  times  demand  a  reinvestigation  of  the  cardinal  prin¬ 
ciples  of  theology,  and  that  he  has  something  to  say  on  these 
important  themes,  the  author  would  not  have  obtruded  himself 
upon  the  attention  of  the  public. 

A  few  words  concerning  the  methods  employed.  Calvinism 
has  been,  and  even  now  is,  so  variously  interpreted,  that  it  has 
been  deemed  necessary  to  devote  not  a  few  pages  to  its  legiti¬ 
mate  exposition.  Knowing  that  it  is  easy  to  misrepresent  an 
opponent  by  carelessly  quoting  his  opinions,  the  author  has 
verified  the  greater  number  of  references.  Where  this  was 
impossible  he  has  taken  them  from  reliable  sources. 

The  arguments  against  Calvinism  are  cumulative.  While 
each  chapter  combats  a  specific  fallacy  or  unscriptural  position, 
the  reader  is  requested  to  waive  his  decision  for  or  against  the 
work  until  he  has  fairly  considered  the  aggregated  results. 

The  work  is  necessarily  polemical.  Yet  the  author  joy¬ 
ously  remembers  the  holy  character  and  unceasing  Christian 
activities  of  his  theological  opponents.  He  would  say  in  the 
words  of  John  Wesley,  “Though  we  can  not  think  alike,  may 
we  not  love  alike  ?  May  we  not  be  of  one  heart,  though  we 
are  not  of  one  opinion  ?  ” 

Harmar)  Ohio. 


CONTENTS. 


PART  I. 

Page- 

What  is  Calvinism  ?  -  -  -  -  -  n 

CHAPTER  I. 

Calvinism  and  Augnstinianism  the  same  in  their  Essen¬ 
tial  Characteristics,  -  -  -  -  14 

CHAPTER  II. 

Are  God’s  Decrees  Conditioned  on  His  Foreknowledge,  1  7 

CHAPTER  III. 

Is  God  Able  to  Prevent  Sin  ?  -  -  -  31 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Why  are  the  Finally  Impenitent  Lost  ?  Is  it  Because 

God  Can  not  save  Them?  -  -  -  -  41 

PART  II. 

Calvinism  Contrary  to  God’s  Word,  -  -  *  53 

CHAPTER  I. 

Calvinism  Teaches  a  Limited  Atonement,  55 

Section  i.  Terms  Defined — The  Problem  Stated,  -  56 

Section  ii.  Concessions  of  Calvinists  —  Illustrating 

Certain  Passages  of  Scripture,  -  61 

Section  hi.  Are  the  Gospel  Invitations  Sincere  ?  -  67 

Section  iv.  The  Atonement  an  Expression  of  God’s 

Universal  Love,  75 


6 


CONTENTS. 


Section  v.  The  Salvation  of  all  Men  the  Pleasure 

and  Will  of  God,  -  -  -  -  84 

CHAPTER  II. 

Calvinism  Teaches  Infant  Damnation,  -  -  -  no 

Section  i.  Does  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith 

Teach  Infant  Damnation  ?  -  -  in 

Section  11.  No  Proof  that  only  Elect  Infants  Die,  115 

Section  iii.  Infant  Condemnation  was  Taught  Prior 

to  the  Westminster  Assembly,  -  -  118 

Section  iv.  Infant  Condemnation  Taught  by  the  West¬ 
minster  Assembly,  -  -  -  12c 

Section  v.  The  Doctrine  More  or  Less  Distinctly 

Taught  Since  the  Westminster  Assem¬ 
bly,  .....  1 22 

CHAPTER  III. 

Calvinism  Contradicts  the  Bible  by  Declaring  Saving 
Faith  to  b>e  a  Direct  Gift  of  God,  -  -  -  126 

Section  i.  Calvinism  Declares  that  Faith  is  not  a 

Condition  of  Salvation,  -  -  -  127 

Section  ii.  The  Importance  of  Faith,  -  -  130 

Section  iii.  The  Nature  of  Faith,  -  -  -  136 

Section  iv.  The  Language  of  Scripture  Presupposes 

and  Asserts  that  P'aith  which  Worketh 
by  Love  is  a  Radical  Condition  of  Sal¬ 
vation,  -----  137 

Section  v.  How  is  Faith  Obtained  ?  How  does  it 

Come  ?-----  143 

Section  iv.  Objections  Considered,  -  -  -  146 

CHAPTER  IV. 

For  What  are  the  Non-Elect  Eternally  Punished?  -  168 

Section  1.  Can  the  Non  Elect  be  Saved?  -  -  169 

Section  ii.  How  Certain  Calvinists  Vindicate  the  Di¬ 
vine  Justice  and  Sincerity,  -  -  176 


CONTENTS.  7 

Section  iii.  Calvinism  Teaches  that  the  Non-Elect  are 

Rejected  and  Condemned  Irrespective 
of  their  Wicked  Deeds  or  Character,  205 

Section  iv.  The  Doctrine  Denied,  and  yet  Granted  by 

Some  Calvinists,  -  -  -  -  212 

Section  v.  The  Doctrine  Denied  by  some  Calvinists, 

but  Logically  Necessitated  by  their 
Fundamental  Position,  -  -  217 

Section  vi.  The  Bible  Argument,  ...  224 

CHAPTER  V. 

The  Foreknowledge  of  God.  How  Related  to  His  Will,  246 

Section  i.  Is  Divine  Foreknowledge  Possible  ?  -  247 

Section  ii.  Calvinism  Limits  God’s  Omniscience,  277 

Section  iii.  The  Bible  Testimony  Concerning  the  Di¬ 
vine  Prescience  and  Will,  -  -  292 

Note  I.,  -  -  -  -  -  -  311 

Note  II.,  -------  312 

PART  III. 

Calvinism  Contrary  to  Man’s  Moral  Nature,  -  -  319 

CHAPTER  I. 

Calvinism  Makes  God  the  Author  of  Sin,  -  -  -  321 

Section  i.  No  Absolute  Evil  in  the  Universe,  -  321 

Section  ii.  God  the  Efficient  Cause  of  Sin,  -  -  323 

Section  iii.  The  Infra  or  Sublapsarians  declare  that 

the  Views  of  the  Supralapsarians  legiti¬ 
mately  make  God  the  Author  of  Sin,  325 

Section  iv.  How  some  Calvinists  Show  that  God  is 

not  the  Author  of  Sin,  -  327 

Section  v.  God’s  Will  not  the  Criterion  of  Right,  340 

Section  vi.  The  Infralapsarian  Scheme.  Does  it 

Solve  the  Problem  ? 


348 


8 


CONTENTS. 


Section  vii.  My  Position  Confirmed  by  Eminent  Cal¬ 
vinists,  -  -  -  35 2 

Section  viii.  God  not  Guiltless,  if  He  Permits,  when 

He  Could  Prevent  Sin,  ...  358 

Section  ix.  Some  Objections  Considered,  -  -  365 

CHAPTER  II. 

* 

Calvinism  Contradicts  Conscience,  -  374 

Section  i.  Calvinism  Denies  the  Truthfulness  of  Re¬ 
morse,  -----  375 

Section  ii.  Calvinism  Contradicts  the  Ought  of  Con¬ 
science,  -  380 

Secton  hi.  In  Denying  the  Ought  of  Conscience, 

Calvinism  Contradicts  the  Divine  Law,  387 


CHAPTER  III. 

Calvinism  an  Ally  of  Universalism,  -  -  .  392 

Section  i.  Calvinism  and  Universalism  agree  Con¬ 
cerning  God’s  Power,  -  -  394 

Section  ii.  Calvinism  and  Universalism  Substantially 

Agree  Concerning  the  Good  Uses  of  Sin 
and  the  Denial  of  Freedom,  -  -  398 

Section  hi.  To  a  Large  Extent  Universalism  is  a  Re¬ 
action  Against  Calvinism,  -  -  400 

Section  iv.  As  Universalism  Becomes  more  Biblical, 

the  Fundamental  doctrine  of  Calvinism 
is  Denied,  -----  403 

Note  III.,  -------  408 


PART  I. 

WHAT  IS  CALVINISM? 

‘  ‘  It  can  not  be  said  that  the  slightest  departure 
from  the  statements  of  Calvin  is  an  abandonment  of 
Calvinism.  And  yet  there  are  some  principles  so 
distinctive,  that  if  they  be  given  up  the  system  is 
abandoned.” — Alvan  Tobey. 


' 


. 


- 

' 

■ 


' 


PART  I. 


What  is  Calvinism? 

Among  the  friends  of  Calvinism  two  views  exten¬ 
sively  prevail.  The  first  regards  the  system  as  con¬ 
siderably  modified  since  the  sixteenth  century  ;  hence, 
any  harsh  statement  made  by  an  opponent  is  charac¬ 
terized  as  a  misrepresentation.  Possibly  such  things 
were  once  taught,  but  are  not  now,  and  therefore, 
they  should  not  be  designated  as  Calvinism. 

Again,  it  is  constantly  affirmed  by  others  equally 
friendly,  that  Calvinism  has  not  changed  ;  that  its 
distinctive  doctrines  are  taught  now,  as  formerly,  at 
the  seminary  and  in  the  pulpit. 

Here,  it  would  seem  is  conflicting  testimony  ;  yet, 
possibly  both  parties  are  right.  It  is  quite  suggestive 
that  the  first  position  is  more  generally  held  by  laymen, 
who,  somewhat  conscious  of  the  repulsive  features  of 
Calvinism,  desire  to  commend  its  doctrines. 

The  other  view  extensively  prevails  among  minis¬ 
ters  and  theologians ;  hence,  the  divergence  may  be 
explained  on  the  supposition  that  while  the  theology 
is  held  in  its  substantial  integrity  at  the  seminaries, 
and  by  all,  or  nearly  all  ministers  at  their  ordination, 
yet  as  it  is  heard  by  the  people,  as  it  is  preached  by 
the  majority  of  pastors,  its  most  objectionable  features 
have  been  greatly  modified  so  as  to  mean  almost  noth¬ 
ing,  or  so  explained  as  to  teach  Arminianism. 


ii 


12  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

The  present  discussion  in  the  Presbyterian  church 
concerning  the  revision  of  the  Westminster  Confession 
has  already  clearly  revealed  the  existence  of  these 
conflicting  opinions.1 

The  following  exposition  of  Calvinism  by  its  ablest 
defenders  is  worthy  the  reader’s  careful  attention. 


l  At  a  special  meeting  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  Nov.  4,  1889, 
Dr.  Sehaff  read  a  paper  oil  Revision  of  the  Westminster  Confession.  Dur¬ 
ing  the  reading  he  asked  the  brethren  present  if  any  of  them  ever  preached 
on  the  decree  of  reprobation  to  manifest  it  by  rising.  No  one  rose. — Maga¬ 
zine  of  Christian  Literature,  Jan.,  1S90,  p.  204. 


CHAPTER  I. 


Calvinism  and  Augustinianism  the  Same  in 
Their  Essential  Characteristics. 

‘  ‘  Our  fathers  had  much  discussion  over  the  doctrine 
of  decrees  ;  and,  indeed,  it  is  a  wonder  that  we  do 
not  have  more,  for  whoever  looks  into  the  mighty 
themes  of  a  theodicy  must  regard  election,  decrees, 
foreordination,  freewill,  fate,  these  matters  concern¬ 
ing  which  the  angfels  debated  in  Milton’s  ‘  Paradise 
Lost,’  as  really  supreme  topics  of  philosophy  as  well 
as  of  religious  science.” — Joseph  Cook . 


CHAPTER  I. 


Calvinism  and  Augustinianism  the  Same  in 
their  Essential  Characteristics. 

“Much  of  Calvin’s  theology  is  common  to  him 
with  all  evangelical  divines,  and  in  the  parts  which 
are  more  peculiar  to  him  and  his  school  he  follows 
closely  in  the  steps  of  Augustine.”  1 

In  an  article  on  “  The  Position  of  Calvinism,” 
Rev.  Robert  Aikman,  D.  D.,  uses  the  following  lan¬ 
guage  :  “It  will  be  in  order  just  here  to  state  what  is 
the  Augustinian  theology,  or  Calvinism,  which  is  the 
same  thing.”  2 3 

Says  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  “  Such  is  the  great  scheme 
of  doctrine  known  in  history  as  the  Pauline,  Augus¬ 
tinian,  or  Calvinistic,  taught  as  we  believe,  in  the 
Scriptures.”  :i 

On  the  other  hand,  both  Lutherans  and  Calvinists, 
following  the  example  of  Augustine,  rejected  the 
notion  of  the  freedom  of  the  will,  and  denied  every 
co-operation  on  the  part  of  man.  Nevertheless  it  is  a 
striking  fact  that  the  Lutherans  avoided  the  strict  con¬ 
sequences  of  the  Augustinian  system  and  asserted  that 
the  decrees  of  God  are  conditional,  while  the  Calvin¬ 
ists  not  only  admitted  the  necessity  of  those  conse¬ 
quences,  but  having  once  determined  the  idea  of 

1  W.  L-  Alexander,  D.D.,  “  Encyclopaedia  Brit.” 

2  “  Meth.  Review,”  1873,  p.  301. 

3  “Systematic  Theol.,”  Vol.  II.,  p.  333. 

14 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL,  NATURK. 


15 


predestination,  went  so  far  as  to  maintain  that  the  fall 
of  man  itself  was  predestinated  by  God.”  1 

Professor  George  P.  Fisher,  D.  D.,  says:  “The 
particulars  in  which  Calvin  varied  from  Augustine  are 
these,  Augustine  made  the  fall  of  Adam,  the  first  sin, 
the  object  of  a  permissive  decree.  Calvin  was  not  sat¬ 
isfied  with  a  bare  passive  permission  on  the  part  of 
God,  and  makes  statements  which  tend  to  the  supra- 
lapsarian  idea.  This  view  was  developed  by  Beza  and 
a  section  of  the  Calvinists.  But  infralapsarian  or 
Augustinian  Calvinism  has  had  the  suffrages  of  a 
majority.  It  is  found  in  the  Westminster  Confession, 
and  even  the  creed  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  does  not  go 
beyond  it.  Augustine  held  to  the  praeterition,  instead 
of  the  reprobation  of  the  wicked  ;  or  rather  to  their 
reprobation,  not  to  sin,  but  to  the  punishment  of 

sin . High  Calvinists  held  to  a  positive  decree 

of  reprobation,  analogous  to  that  of  election;  yet 
denied  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin.  Calvin  dif¬ 
fered  from  Augustine  in  holding  to  the  perseverance 
of  all  believers  ;  that  is,  that  none  but  the  elect  ever 
exercise  saving  faith.  Augustine  attributed  to  the 
sacraments  a  greater  effect  on  the  non-elect.  Thus  he 
held  that  all  baptized  infants  are  saved.  This  sacra¬ 
mental  tenet  is  often  declared  to  be  a  feature  of  the 
Anglican  system,  as  opposed  to  that  of  Calvin.”2 


1  Hagenbach’s  “  History  of  Doctrine,’'  Vol.  II.,  p.  254. 

2  “  History  of  the  Reformation,”  p.  337,  note. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Are  God’s  Decrees  Conditioned  on  His  Fore* 

KNOWLEDGE  ? 

“The  great  Genevan  Reformer  with  consistent  in¬ 
trepidity,  was  in  truth,  so  far  as  doctrine  is  concerned, 
the  highest  of  the  high.  Fearlessly  pushing  his 
principles  to  their  full  legitimate  extent,  he  at  once 
maintained,  without  any  restriction  or  disguise,  both 
the  dogma  of  reprobation  and  the  theory  of  supralap- 
sarianism.’’ — G.  S.  Faber,  D.  D. 


16 


CHAPTER  II. 


Are  God’s  Decrees  Conditioned  on  His  Fore¬ 
knowledge  ? 

This  is  the  crucial  question  concerning  the  doctrine 
of  Divine  decrees.  The  following  pages  will  clearly 
disclose  the  fact  that  Calvinism  has  but  one  answer  to 
the  question. 

“  Augustine  accounts  for  the  fact  that  some  men 
are  renewed,  and  some  are  not,  because  of  the  uncon¬ 
ditional  decree  ( '  decretum  absolutum) . Its 

ground  and  reason  is  God’s  wise  good  pleasure,  and 
not  a  foreseen  faith  upon  the  part  of  the  individual 
man.”  1 

The  following  is  a  concise  and  clear  presentation 
of  the  doctrine  as  formulated  by  Gottschalk  :  “  The 

peculiarity  in  the  doctrine  of  Gottschalk  consisted  in 
this,  that  he  applied  the  notion  of  predestination  not 
merely,  as  was  commonly  done,  to  the  pious  and  to 
salvation,  but  also  to  the  reprobate  and  to  everlasting 
punishment.  He  affirmed  a  preedestinatio  duplex ,  by 
virtue  of  which  God  decreed  eternal  life  to  the  elect, 
and  the  elect  to  eternal  life,  and  so  also  everlasting 
punishment  to  the  reprobate,  and  the  reprobate  to 
everlasting  punishment.  This  doctrine  seems  to  him 
important,  because  it  enabled  him  to  hold  fast  the 
unchangeableness  of  the  divine  decrees,  and  their 
entire  independence  of  that  which  takes  place  in  time. 

i  Dr.  W.  G.  T.  Shedd’s  “  History  of  Doctrine,”  Vol.  I.,  pp.  70,  71 

17 


1 8  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

In  reference  to  the  works  of  God,  foreknowledge  and 
foreordination  are  one  ;  his  knowledge  being  one  with 
his  will,  and  this  will  creative.”  1  ....  “Thomas 

Aquinas,  in  opposition  to  those  who  supposed  a  grace 
conditioned  on  the  right  use  of  freewill,  and  a  predes¬ 
tination  conditioned  on  the  divine  foreknowledge  with 
regard  to  this  right  use,  maintained  that  all  this  is 
already  comprised  among  the  effects  of  predestination 
and  presupposed  by  it.”  2 

Beza  “  adopted  the  supralapsarian  statement  of  the 
doctrine  of  predestination  which  renders  the  doctrine 
more  austere  and  repelling  than  the  infralapsarian 
representation.”  3  “The  Second  Helvetic  Confession 
says,  ‘  God,  from  eternity,  predestinated  or  elected 
freely,  and  of  his  own  mere  grace,  with  no  respect 
of  men’s  character,  the  saints  whom  he  would  save 
in  Christ.’  ”  4  “  No  one  can  deny  but  God  foreknew 

Adam’s  fall,  and  foreknew  it  because  he  had  ordained 
it  so  by  his  own  decree.  ”  5  “  The  decision  of  the  Synod 

of  Dort,  condemnatory  of  the  Arminian  doctrines,  was 
unanimous . In  accordance  with  the  acknowl¬ 

edged  symbols  of  that  church  (the  Reformed)  the 

Synod  decided . (2 )  ‘  That  God  out  of  the 

human  race,  fallen  by  their  fault  into  sin  and  destruc¬ 
tion,  according  to  the  most  free  good  pleasure  of  his 
own  will,  and  of  mere  grace,  chose  a  certain  number 
of  men,  neither  better  nor  worthier  than  others.  .  .  . 
to  salvation  in  Christ.’”6  “Although  God  knows 

1  Neander’s  “  Church  History,”  Vol.  III.,  p.  474. 

2 Ibid.,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  478. 

3  Shedd’s  “  History  of  Doctrine,”  Vol.  II.,  p.  192. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  470,  Chap.  XXIII.,  Sec.  7. 

5  Calvin’s  “  Inst.,”  Book  III. 

6  Chas.  Hodge.  “  Theology,”  Voi.  II.,  p.  724. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


19 


whatsoever  may  or  can  come  to  pass,  upon  all  sup¬ 
posed  conditions  ;  yet  hath  he  not  decreed  anything 
because  he  foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as  that  which  would 

come  to  pass,  upon  such  conditions . Those  of 

mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto  life,  God,  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world  was  laid,  according  to  his 
eternal  and  immutable  purpose,  and  the  secret  coun¬ 
sel  and  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  hath  chosen  in 
Christ,  unto  everlasting  glory,  out  of  his  mere  free 
grace  and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good 
works,  or  perseverance  in  either  of  them,  or  any  other 
thing  in  the  creature,  as  conditions,  or  causes  moving 
him  thereunto  ;  and  all  to  the  praise  of  his  glorious 
grace.”  1 

“Others  there  are  who  have  taught  that  God’s 
electing  of  these  and  rejecting  the  other,  dependeth 
wholly  on  the  will  of  men  themselves,  and  not  on  the 
decree  or  will  of  God  :  and  that  there  is  none  rejected 
of  God  till  by  their  own  contempt,  themselves  do  first 
reject  God,  and  by  their  willful  obstinacy  refuse  his 
grace  which  is  offered  unto  them.  How  evidently  do 
these  men  oppugn  the  Scriptures  of  God  !  For  if 
election  and  rejection  depend  on  the  actions  of  men 
after  they  are  born,  how  can  it  be  true  which  the 
apostle  teacheth,  that  we  are  elected  before  the  foun¬ 
dation  of  the  world  ?”  2 

“That  he  foreknew  the  futurity  of  it  (the  fall)  is 
undeniable,  for  he  laid  in  for  a  remedy  against  the 
evil  effects  of  it,  respecting  his  elect,  having  chosen 
them  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 


1  “  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,”  pp.  26-28. 

2”  A  Sermon  on  Predestination.”  Rev.  Rich.  Crakanthorp,  D.D., 
Eondon,  1623,  pp.  10,  11. 


20 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


(Eph.  1:4,)  which  foreknowledge  could  have  no 
ground,  but  in  his  purpose,  the  thing  being  in  itself 
contingent.”  1 

Toplady  says  :  ‘  ‘  Those  who  are  ordained  unto 

eternal  life  were  not  so  ordained  on  account  of  any 
worthiness  foreseen  in  them,  or  of  any  good  works  to 
be  wrought  by  them,  not  yet  for  their  future  faith,  but 
purely  and  solely,  of  free  sovereign  grace,  and  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  mere  good  pleasure  of  God.”  2 

“  God  decreeth  to  give  us  His  grace  and  be  the 
chief  cause  of  all  our  holiness  ;  and  doth  not  elect  us 
to  salvation  on  foresight  that  we  will  do  his  will,  or 
be  sanctified  by  ourselves  without  him.  It  is  strange 
that  any  should  think  that  God  would  undertake  so 
great  a  work  as  man’s  redemption,  and  not  effectually 
secure  the  success  by  his  own  will  and  wisdom  :  but 
leave  all  to  the  lubricous  will  of  man.”  3 

“The  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  predestination  sup¬ 
poses  that  holiness  of  heart  and  life  are  as  much  the 
object  of  divine  appointment  as  future  happiness,  and 
that  this  connection  can  never  be  broken.”  4 

Speaking  of  the  elect,  Charnock  says,  “Nor  could 
it  be  any  foresight  of  works  to  be  done  in  time  by  them, 
or  of  faith  that  might  determine  God  to  choose  them.”  5 
“When  we  say  that  God  acts  in  an  absolute  and 
sovereign  manner,  the  meaning  is,  that  he  acts  upon 
the  best  and  strongest  reasons  and  for  the  noblest  and 
most  excellent  ends  :  but  which  are,  many  or  most  of 
them  beyond  our  reach  and  comprehension,  and  par- 

1  Sam’l  Willard,  “Complete  Body  of  Divinity,”  1726,  p.  178. 

2  “Works,”  London,  1857,  p.  694. 

3  The  Genius,  Works,  and  Times,  ot  Baxter,”  1845,  Vol.  I.,  p.  45. 

4  A.  Fuller’s  11  Works.”  Bohn’s  Lib’y,  p.  364. 

5  “  Attributes  of  God,”  London,  1842,  p.  662. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  2  1 

tieularly,  that  there  is  not  the  least  foundation  for 
supposing  that  the  reasons  of  preference  are  taken 
from  comparative  human  merit.  ’  ’ 1 

“  St.  Paul  exhibits  this  subject  in  a  happier  man¬ 
ner  :  ‘  Whom  he  foreknew,  ’  says  the  apostle,  ‘  he  also 
predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son.’ 
By  this  declaration,  we  are  not  to  understand  that  the 
predestination  spoken  of  followed  the  foreknowledge, 
any  more  than  that  the  foreknowledge  followed  the 
predestination.  The  Apostle  says:  ‘Whom  he  fore¬ 
knew,’  not  after  he  had  foreknown  them.”  2 

‘  ‘  Those  who  would  account  for  the  foreknowledge 
of  God  without  his  decrees,  have  always  found  the 
subject  dark  and  incomprehensible.  But  there  is 
nothing  dark,  unintelligible  or  incomprehensible  in  the 
foreknowledge  of  God  as  founded  on  his  decrees.  If 
God  formed  all  his  purposes  from  eternity,  he  must 
necessarily  have  known  all  things  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world.  For  if  the  foreknowledge  of  God  be  not 
founded  upon  his  decrees,  it  has  no  foundation  :  it  is 
an  effect  without  a  cause.”  3 

Says  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins:  “Foreknowledge  is 
not  only  to  be  distinguished  from  the  decree,  but  must 
be  considered,  as,  in  the  order  of  nature,  consequent 
upon  the  determination  and  purpose  of  God  ;  and  de- 
pendeth  upon  it.  For  the  futurition  or  futurity  of  all 
things  depends  upon  the  decrees  of  God.  By  these, 
every  created  existence  and  every  event,  with  all  their 
circumstances,  are  fixed  and  made  certain ;  and  in 


1  Dr.  Witherspoon.  “  Works.”  Vol.  I.,  p.  189. 

2  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight.  “  Works.”  Vol.  I.,  p.  240. 

3  Dr.  N.  Emmons.  “Works.”  Ide’s  Ed.,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  326,  327. 


22 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


consequence  of  their  being  thus  decreed,  they  are  the 
objects  of  foreknowledge.”  4 

Says  Dr.  E.  D.  Griffin,  “Faith  (the  condition  of 
salvation)  and  holiness  generally,  instead  of  being  in¬ 
dependent  acts  of  the  creature  under  the  persuasions 

of  the  Spirit,  are  the  gift  of  God . The  choice 

of  the  elect  was  made,  not  in  view  of  the  foreseen  op¬ 
erations  of  the  determining  power,  but  by  the  sovereign 
will  of  God  decreeing  to  make  them  holy  ;  and  they 
are  made  holy  in  consequence  of  that  decree.”  5 6 

The  following  is  from  Dr.  John  Dick  :  “I  remark 
once  more  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  absolute  and 
unconditional.  .  .  .  Here  we  have  many  opponents. 

Lutherans,  Arminians,  Jesuits  ;  all,  in  a  word,  who 
have  not  adopted  those  views  of  the  subject  which  are 

usually  called  Calvinistic . When  he  decreed 

to  save  those  who  should  believe,  he  decreed  to  give 

them  faith . That  any  decree  is  conditional 

in  the  sense  of  our  opponents,  that  it  depends  upon 
the  will  of  man,  of  which  he  is  sovereign,  so  that  he 
may  will  or  not  will  as  he  pleases — we  deny  ”  0  Says 
Dr.  John  Howe,  “  Lastly,  it  is  very  evident,  that  as 
to  communications  of  grace  and  favor,  God  doth  dis¬ 
pense  very  differently  :  and  therefore  must  be  under¬ 
stood  to  intend  so  to  do,  and  to  have  always  intended 
it.”  7  “Thus  we  think,  that  the  decree  and  the  fore¬ 
knowledge  of  God  are  inseparably  connected  together: 
and  that,  according  to  human  conceptions,  the  decree, 
in  point  of  order,  must  precede  foreknowledge.  The 


4  “Works,”  Vol.  I.,  p.  70. 

5  “  The  Doctrine  of  Divine  Efficiency,”  pp.  127-145. 

6  “  Lectures,”  New  York,  1856,  p.  357. 

“  Works,”  London,  1862,  p.  1139. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


23 


reverse  of  all  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Arminians. 
They  say  that  the  foreknowledge  of  God  is  the  ground 
of  his  decree.”  8 

“  But  although  God  was  not  moved  in  the  election 
of  his  people  by  the  foresight  of  their  faith  or  good 
works,  but  chose  them  out  of  his  mere  love  ;  I  re¬ 
mark  (3)  In  his  sovereign  and  gracious  purpose  of 
election  all  the  means  that  are  necessary  to  their  sal¬ 
vation  are  included  or  were  provided  for.”9  ‘‘But 
why  was  this  salvation  confined  to  a  certain  favored 
number  called  the  elect  ?  This  doctrine  of  the  sov¬ 
ereignty  of  divine  grace,  has  from  the  beginning  been 
offensive  to  human  reason.  The  selection  of  men  and 
not  of  angels,  as  the  object  of  redemption,  can  be 
borne  with  ;  but  that,  out  of  the  same  mass  some 
should  be  taken,  confessedly  no  better  than  others  by 
nature  ;  and  that  many  should  be  reprobated  or  left, 
no  worse  than  those  elected,  has  ever  been  a  stum¬ 
bling  block  to  multitudes.”  1 

“  ’Tis  true, many  who  are  too  proud  to  be  indebted 
for  their  eternal  salvation  to  the  free  favor  of  God,  in¬ 
sist  that  the  election  by  which  he  distinguishes  sinners 
from  sinners,  is  grounded  upon  good  disposition  ;  upon 
faith  and  holiness  foreseen  in  the  objects  of  that  elec¬ 
tion.  But  if  men  be  allowed  to  interpolate  divine 
revelation  and  to  add  to  the  oracles  of  Jehovah 
the  figments  of  their  own  invention,  we  may  lay  aside 
our  Bibles.”  2 

“  With  respect  to  the  doctrine  of  election,  I  would 

8  Dr.  Ashbel  Green.  “  Lectures  on  the  Shorter  Catechism,”  p.  178. 

9  Dr.  G.  W.  Musgrave.  “  Tracts  on  the  Doctrines,  Order  and  Polity  of 
Presbyterian  Church,”  Vol.  III.,  p.  205. 

1  Dr.  A.  Alexander.  “  Compend.  of  Bible  Truth,”  p.  toi. 

2  Dr.  J.  M.  Mason.  “  Complete  Works,”  1849,  Vol.  III.,  p.405. 


24  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

state  it  in  Scripture  terms,  and  obviate  the  Antinomian 
interpretation,  by  remarking  that  man,  as  man,  is  said 
to  be  chosen  to  obedience,  to  be  conformed  to  the  im¬ 
age  of  his  Son,  etc.,  and  not  on  a  foresight  of  his 
faith  or  obedience  ;  as  also  that  the  distinction  be¬ 
tween  true  believers  and  others  is  often  expressly 
ascribed  to  God.”  3  “  Election  is  the  choice  of  certain 

persons  by  God,  from  all  eternity,  to  grace  and  glory. 
The  reason  why  men  are  elected  is  not  because  Christ 
has  shed  his  blood  for  them,  redeemed  and  saved 
them  ;  but  Christ  has  done  all  this  for  them,  because 
they  are  elected.  It  is  wholly  owing  to  the  will  and 
pleasure  of  God,  and  not  to  the  faith,  holiness,  obedi¬ 
ence  and  good  works  of  men  ;  nor  to  a  foresight  of  all 
or  any  of  these.  It  is  absolute  and  unconditional, 
irrespective  of  anything  in  man  as  the  cause  and  con¬ 
dition  of  it.”4  ‘‘The  decrees  of  God  are  to  be  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  his  prescience  or  foreknowledge. 
Foreknowledge  and  decrees  are  intimately  connected, 
but  not  identical . Foreknowledge  is  condi¬ 

tioned  on,  or  founded  in  decrees.”5 

“  This  relation  of  God’s  knowledge  and  foreknowl¬ 
edge  to  his  purpose  is  important  to  a  just  conception 
of  his  sovereignty.  God  could  not  foreknow  an  event 
which  was  dependent  on  his  positive  or  permissive 
will  until  he  had  purposed  to  accomplish  or  permit 
it.”6 

Speaking  of  the  views  of  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor  and 
President  Finney,  Rev.  Jas.  Wood,  D.  D.  says,  “  They 

3  Robt.  Hall.  “  Works,”  Vol.  III.,  p.  231. 

4  Dr.  John  Gill,  Quoted  by  Dan’l  T.  Fiske  in  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  Vol.  XIV.,, 
P-  359- 

5  Article  by  Dan’l  T.  Fiske.  "  Bib.  Sacra.”  Vol.  XIX,  pp.  403,  413. 

6  H-  A.  Lawrence.  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  Vol.  XX.,  p.  340. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURK.  25 

involve  the  denial  of  divine  decrees  ;  for  if  (5od  does 
not  possess  such  absolute  control  over  his  creatures 
that  he  can  govern  them  according  to  his  pleasure, 
how  could  he  have  decreed  anything  unconditionally 
concerning  them,  since  it  might  happen,  that  in  the 
exercise  of  their  free  agency,  they  would  act  contrary 
to  the  divine  purpose  ?  On  the  same  principle,  they 
virtually  reject  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  election  and 
make  election  depend  upon  the  foreknowledge  of  God, 
and  the  will  of  the  creature.”  7 

“You  will  observe  that  the  Confession  only  says 
that  he  did  not  decree  anything  because  he  foresaw  it; 
that  is,  his  foreknowledge  is  not  the  ground  or  cau.se 
of  his  decrees.  Still  they  are  inseparably  connected. 
His  decrees  are  not  dependent  upon  his  foreknowledge, 
nor  identical  with  it ;  but  his  foreknowledge  is  rather 
dependent  upon  his  decrees,  though  perfectly  distinct 
from  them.”  8 

“  Speaking  of  the  simple  intelligence  and  determin¬ 
ate  knowledge  of  the  Deity,  Robt.  J.  Breckenridge, 
D.  D.,  IvD.D.,  remarks,  “  By  the  latter,  which  involves 
the  divine  will,  God  knows  from  eternity  all  things 
that  would  actually  exist  in  the  system  of  the  universe. 
This  is  called  foreknowledge.  God,  as  we  have  shown, 
knows  all  possible  things  whether  considered  sepa¬ 
rately  or  in  systems  ;  hence  he  knows  all  things  that 
are  possible  under  all  possible  systems.  And  all 
things  that  will  be  actual,  he  knows  as  being  deter¬ 
mined  by  his  will.”  9 

“Again,  if  election  were  according  to  faith  and 


7  “  Old  and  New  Theology,”  p.  31. 

8  Wm.  D.  Smith.  “  What  is  Calvinism  ?  ”  p.  39. 

“  9  The  Knowledge  of  God,  Objectively  Considered,”  1858,  p.  277. 


26  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

works  foreseen,  there  would  be  no  difficulty  in  answer¬ 
ing  the  question,  why  God  chooses  one  and  not  an¬ 
other?  It  would  be  because  God  foresaw  that  the 
former  would  believe  and  that  the  latter  would  remain 
in  unbelief :  yet  we  nowhere  read  of  this  in  Paul,  nor 
in  the  other  sacred  writers  ;  on  the  contrary  it  is  ex¬ 
pressly  declared  that  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth.”  1 

“  New-school  Presbyterians  do  not  affirm  that 
faith  foreseen  is  the  condition  with  God  for  his  decree 
of  election,  much  less  an}^  good  works.”2  ‘‘With 
regard  to  unconditional  election,  it  must  be  wholly 
without  foreseen  merit  in  the  creature.  This  is  the 
perfection  of  grace,  that  God  seeks  his  creatures  and 
they  do  not  seek  him.  Nullum  elegit  dignum  ;  nullum 
tamen  pimit  indignum.  This  we  can  not  modify  ;  this 
stands  essential  to  the  doctrine.  We  pass  into  another 
system  if  we  cross  the  line  which  separates  the  two 
problems.”  3 

“  On  the  most  obvious  principles  of  reason,  there¬ 
fore,  the  divine  foreknowledge  of  events  must  have 
been  founded  on  the  divine  will  in  framing  the  uni¬ 
versal  structure  of  things  and  impressing  upon  them 
respectively  the  laws  of  their  action.”  4 

‘‘It  is  not  true  that  he  first  knows  who  will  repent, 
and  then  determines  to  give  them  repentance.  He 
knows  men  will  not  repent,  unless  by  his  Spirit,  he 
gives  them  repentance.”  5 


1  Pictet’s  “Theology.”  Reyroux’s  Translation.  Presby.  Board,  pp. 
204,  205. 

2  Geo.  Duffield,  D.  D.  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  Vol.  XX.,  p.  632. 

3  Leonard  Withington,  D.  D.  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  Vol.  XXI.,  p.  792. 

4  Samuel  S.  Smith,  D.  D.,  LL-IL  “  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion,” 
1816,  pp.  259-260. 

5  Leonard  Woods,  D.  D.  “  Works.”  Vol.  I.,  p.  511. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


27 


Says  Dr.  Venema:  “  The  act  of  the  decree  is  abso¬ 
lute  ;  not  uncertain  or  doubtful.  It  is  not  suspended 
on  any  condition  on  the  part  of  man.”  6 

Commenting  on  Rom.  ix.  11,  Dr.  Albert  Barnes 
says  :  “It  was  not  because  they  had  formed  a  char¬ 
acter  and  manifested  qualities  which  made  this  distinc¬ 
tion  proper.  It  was  laid  back  of  any  such  character 
and  therefore  had  its  foundation  in  the  purpose  or 
plan  of  God.”  1 

“  The  idea  that  God  elected  some  because  he  fore¬ 
saw  that  they  would  repent  is  not  sustained  when  we 
consider  that  God  could  not  foresee  anything  which 
was  not  certain  ;  and  that  nothing  but  God’s  decree 
makes  it  certain.”  2 

“  Holy  practice  is  not  the  ground  and  reason  of 
election,  as  is  supposed  by  the  Arminians,  who  im¬ 
agine  that  God  elects  men  to  everlasting  life  upon  a 
foresight  of  their  good  works  :  but  it  is  the  aim  and 
end  of  election.  God  does  not  elect  men  because  he 
foresees  that  they  will  be  holy,  but  that  he  may  make 
them,  and  that  they  may  be  holy.”  3 

“Our  opponents  would  have  it,  that  all  whom  he 
foreknew  would  be  penitent,  or  virtuous,  or  obedient, 
them  He  did  predestinate  to  eternal  life — thus  subor¬ 
dinating  the  decrees  of  God  to  the  doings  of  men. 
But  unfortunately  for  their  view,  the  predestination 
here  is  a  predestination  in  the  first  instance  to  the 
character  of  saints,  ere  they  should  be  translated  to 
the  glory  of  the  inheritance  of  saints,  so  as  very  clearly 


c  “  Institutes  of  Theology,”  1853,  p.  289. 

1“  Commentary.” 

2  Nehemiah  Adams,  D.  D.  “  Evenings  With  The  Doctrines,”  p.  256. 

3  Pres.  Edwards.  “  Christian  Eove,”  p.  321. 


28 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


to  subordinate  the  doings  and  the  moral  state  of  men 
to  the  preordination  of  God.”  4 

Controverting  the  views  of  Professor  John  Forbes, 
D.  D.,  L,E-D.,  of  Edinburgh,  Dr.  Lyman  H.  Atwater  in 
“The  Presbyterian  Quarterly  and  Princeton  Review,” 
remarks  :  ‘  ‘  He  frequently  argues  as  if  it  were  Supra- 
lapsarianism  not  to  hold  that  the  decree  of  election  or 
reprobation  is  conditioned  on  a  foresight  of  consent  to, 
or  stubborn  rejection  of,  salvation  in  Christ.  This 
latter  doctrine,  however,  is  not  Supralapsarianism,  but 
simple  Arminianism.”  5 

“  From  the  mass  of  fallen  men  God  elected  a  num¬ 
ber  innumerable  to  eternal  life,  and  left  the  rest  of 
mankind  to  the  just  recompense  of  their  sins.  That 
the  ground  of  this  election  is  not  the  foresight  of  any¬ 
thing  in  the  one  class  to  distinguish  them  favorably 
from  the  members  of  the  other  class,  but  the  good 
pleasure  of  God.”6 

The  following  is  from  “  Outlines  of  Theology,”  by 
Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  :  “  The  truth  is  that  God,  eternally 

and  unchangeably,  by  one  comprehensive  act  of  will, 
willed  all  that  happened  to  Adam  from  beginning  to 
end  in  the  precise  order  and  succession  in  which  each 
event  occurred.  God’s  will  is  suspended  upon  no  con¬ 
dition,  but  he  eternally  wills  the  event  as  suspended 
upon  its  condition,  and  its  condition  as  determining 
the  event . Calvinists  admit  that  the  all  com¬ 

prehensive  decree  of  God  determines  all  events  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  inherent  nature,  the  actions  of  free  agents 
as  free,  and  the  operations  of  necessary  causes,  neces- 

4  Dr.  T.  Chalmers.  “  Inst,  of  Theologj',  Vol.  II.,  p.  390. 

5  1873,  p.  165. 

6  Dr.  Chas.  Hodge  "  Systematic  Theology,”  Vol.  II.,  p.  333. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


29 


sary.  It  also  comprehends  the  whole  system  of 
causes  and  effects  of  every  kind  ;  of  the  motives  and 
conditions  of  free  actions  as  well  as  the  necessary 
causes  of  necessary  events.  God  decreed  salvation 
upon  the  condition  of  faith,  yet  in  the  very  same  act 
he  decreed  the  faith  of  those  persons  whose  salvation 
he  has  determined.”  Again,  “  They  are  sovereign  in 
the  sense  that  while  they  determine  absolutely  what¬ 
ever  occurs  without  God,  their  whole  reason  and 
motive  is  within  the  divine  nature,  and  they  are  neither 
suggested  nor  occasioned  by  nor  conditioned  upon 
anything  whatsoever  without  him.”  7 


7  Pages  1 18,  119,  167,  166 


CHAPTER  III. 


Is  God  Able  to  Prevent  Sin  ? 

“  Men  persist  in  regarding  sin,  and  especially  theii 
own  sin,  as  a  trivial  matter,  and  excuse  it,  and  palliate 
it,  and  construct  philosophical  systems  representing  it 
as  on  the  whole  for  the  best.  But  apart  from  human 
philosophy  and  speculation,  and  that  perverted  theo¬ 
logical  teaching  which  makes  ‘  sin  the  necessary  means 
of  the  greatest  good  ’ ;  apart  also,  from  the  schemes  of 
infidel  men,  to  accommodate  matters  to  their  own 
wicked  conduct,  and  so  to  arrange  the  administration 
of  the  Almighty,  that  they  can  live  prayerless  and 
godless  lives  here,  and  yet  come  out  safe  in  the  end 
apart  from  such  things,  there  is  no  countenance  given 
either  from  reason,  or  revelation,  or  the  workings  of 
God’s  providence  in  the  world,  or  from  any  source 
whatever,  to  the  idea,  that  God  has  any  other  views 
or  feelings  about  sin  than  those  of  unmitigated  loath¬ 
ing,  and  an  infinite  preference  that  no  one  of  his 
moral  creatures  should  ever  have  committed  it.” — 
“  Law  and  Pe?ialty  Endless." 


30 


CHAPTER  HI. 


Is  God  Able  to  Prevent  Sin  ? 

“Augustine  teaches  that  God  ordains  sin,  but 
does  not  produce  it.”  1 2 

The  following  is  from  Calvin  :  ‘  ‘  The  will  of  God 

is  the  supreme  and  first  cause  of  things . He  does 

not  remain  an  idle  spectator,  determining  to  permit 
anything ;  there  is  an  intervention  of  an  actual  voli¬ 
tion,  if  I  may  be  allowed  the  expression,  which  other¬ 
wise  could  never  be  considered  a  cause.”  :2 

Speaking  of  Adam’s  relation  to  God,  John  Howe 
says  :  “  He  did  not  purpose  to  confirm  him  at  first  in 
that  good  state  wherein  he  made  him,  so  as  to  make 
it  impossible  for  him  to  fall :  for  we  find  he  did  fall, 
and  is  in  a  lapsed  state  :  therefore  it  was  purposed 
that  his  fall  should  not  be  prevented,  that  it  should 
not  be  hindered.”  3 

“  The  permission  of  the  fall  doth  not  reflect  on  the 

divine  purity . God  is  an  omnipotent  good,  and 

it  is  his  peculiar  glory  to  bring  good  out  of  evil,  that  by 
the  opposition  and  lustre  of  contraries  his  goodness 

might  be  the  more  conspicuous . Now  the  evil  of 

sin  God  permitted  as  a  fit  occasion  for  the  more  glo¬ 
rious  discovery  of  his  attributes,  in  sending  his  Son 

1  Shedd’s  “  History  of  Doctrine,”  Vol.  I.,  p.  85. 

2  "Institutes.”  B.  I.,  Chap.  XVI. 

*  "  Works.”  London,  1862,  p.  1135. 

3i 


32  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

into  the  world  to  repair  his  image  which  was  de¬ 
faced,  and  to  raise  man  from  an  earthly  to  celestial 
happiness.”4 

“He  can  so  permit  sin  as  that  it  should  infallibly 
be,  and  yet  not  so  affect  it  as  that  it  shall  be  any  stain 
to  his  holiness  in  the  least.  As  the  sun  is  not  defiled 
by  shining  upon  the  most  dirty,  stinking  places, 
though  they  stink  the  more  for  its  shining  upon  them  ; 
so  God  is  then  most  holy  when  he  is  giving  of  men 
up  to  sin.  He  can  so  order  it  that  Absalom  shall  com¬ 
mit  the  most  horrid  abomination,  without  being  a 
blamable  cause  of  it.  He  can  harden  Pharaoh’s 
heart  and  yet  very  justly  punish  him  for  that  hardness 
of  his.”  5 

“So  God  by  his  absolute  power,  might  have  pre¬ 
vented  the  sin  of  the  fallen  angels,  and  so  have  pre¬ 
served  them  in  their  first  habitation . Sin,  in 

itself  is  a  disorder,  and  therefore  God  doth  not  permit 
sin  for  itself ;  for  in  its  own  nature  it  hath  nothing  of 
amiableness,  but  he  wills  it  for  some  righteous  end, 
which  belongs  to  the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  which 

is  his  aim  in  all  the  acts  of  his  will . God  willed 

sin,  that  is,  he  willed  to  permit  it,  that  he  might  com¬ 
municate  himself  to  the  creature  in  the  most  excellent 
manner.”  (’ 

“Having,  in  his  infinite  but  incomprehensible 
wisdom  and  righteousness,  permitted  the  fall  and 
apostacy  of  man,  he  looked  upon  the  whole  human 
species  as  deserving  of  destruction  and  meet  for  it.”  7 

4  Win.  Bates.  “The  Harmony  of  the  Divine  Attributes.”  Presby. 
Board,  pp.  50,51,  52. 

5  Sam’l  Willard.  “Complete  Body  of  Divinity,”  Boston,  1726,  p.  134. 

6  Charnoek.  “  Attributes  of  God,”  London,  1842,  pp.  401,  345,  347. 

7  Scott's  “  Comprehensive  Commentary,”  p.  215. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


33 


“God  was  either  willing  that  Adam  should  fall,  or 
unwilling,  or  indifferent  about  it.  If  God  was  un¬ 
willing  that  Adam  should  transgress  how  came  it  to 
pass  that  he  did  ?  Is  man  stronger,  and  is  Satan 
wiser  than  he  that  made  them?  Surely  no.  Again  : 
could  not  God,  had  it  so  pleased  him,  have  hindered 
the  tempter’s  access  to  paradise  ?  or  have  created  man 
as  he  did  the  elect  angels,  with  a  will  invariably  de¬ 
termined  to  good  only,  and  incapable  of  being  biased 
to  evil  ?  Or  at  least  have  made  the  grace  and  strength, 
with  which  he  indued  Adam,  actually  effectual  to  the 
resisting  of  all  solicitations  to  sin  ?  None  but  Atheists 
would  answer  these  questions  in  the  negative.  Surely, 
if  God  had  not  willed  the  fall,  he  could,  and  no  doubt 
would  have  prevented  it :  but  he  did  not  prevent  it  : 
ergo,  he  willed  it.  And  if  he  willed  it,  he  certainly 
decreed  it :  for  the  decree  of  God  is  nothing  else  but 
the  seal  and  ratification  of  his  will.  ’  ’ 8  “  Our  first  par¬ 

ents,  being  seduced  by  the  subtilty  and  temptation  of 
Satan,  sinned  in  eating  the  forbidden  fruit.  This 
their  sin  God  was  pleased,  according  to  his  wise  and 
holy  counsel,  to  permit,  having  purposed  to  order  it 
to  his  own  glory.’’9  Speaking  of  President  Edwards’ 
theology,  President  Noah  Porter  says,  “The  exist¬ 
ence  of  moral  evil,  in  consistency  with  the  divine 
perfections,  is  explained  by  the  principles  announced 
in  the  Treatise  on  the  Will,  viz.:  that  the  Divine 
Being  is  not  the  author  of  sin,  but  only  disposes  things 
in  such  a  manner  that  sin  will  certainly  ensue.  If 
this  certainty  is  not  inconsistent  with  human  liberty, 
then  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  this  liberty  that  God 


8  Toplady’s  “  Works.”  London,  1857,  p.  691. 

9  "Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,”  p.  42. 


34  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

should  be  the  cause  of  this  certainty,  and  in  that  sense 
be  the  author  of  sin.”1  “All  things,  both  beings 
and  events,  exist  in  exact  accordance  with  the  pur- 
noses,  pleasure,  or  what  is  commonly  called,  The  De¬ 
crees  of  God.”  ....  God  ‘‘does  according  to  his 

will,  independently  and  irresistibly . That  God 

could  not  prevent  the  existence  of  sin  can  not  be  main¬ 
tained.”  2 

“  I  believe  that  God  could  have  prevented  sin,  and 
would,  had  he  not  seen  it  a  means  of  blessing  the 
universe  by  filling  it  with  his  glory.  ”  3 

‘‘There  can  nothing  take  place  under  the  care  and 
government  of  an  infinitely  powerful,  wise  and  good 
Being  that  is  not  on  the  whole  wisest  and  best ;  that 
is,  for  the  general  good  ;  therefore,  though  there  be 
things  which  are  in  themselves  evil,  even  in  their  own 
nature  and  tendency,  such  are  sin  and  misery  ;  yet, 
considered  in  their  connection  with  the  whole,  and  as 
they  are  necessary  in  the  best  system  to  accomplish 
the  greatest  good,  the  most  important  and  best  ends  ; 
they  are  in  this  view  desirable  good,  and  not  evil. 
And  in  this  view  there  is  no  absolute  evil  in  the  uni¬ 
verse  !  There  are  evils  in  themselves  considered,  but 
considered  as  connected  with  the  whole,  they  are  not 
evil  but  good.”  4 

‘‘The  first  Cause  of  all  things  must  have  decreed 
all  things.  If  God  has  not  decreed,  he  has  not  caused 
all  things.  And  if  he  has  not  caused  all  things  what 
reason  is  there  to  believe  that  he  has  caused  anything  ? 

1  Ueberweg’s  “  History  of  Philosophy.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  448. 

3  T.  Dwight’s  “  Theology.”  Vol.  I.,  pp.  238,  241,  253. 

3  IJ.  D.  Griffin  ‘‘The  Doctrine  of  Divine  IJffieiency,”  p.  32. 

4  Samuel  Hopkins’.  “Theology,”  Vol.  I.,  p.  92. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


35 


....  His  power  is  absolutely  unlimited  and  irresisti¬ 
ble.”  5 

Speaking  of  moral  evils,  President  Samuel  Stanhope 
Smith  says,  “  To  say  that  they  have  been  merely  per¬ 
mitted,  without  any  interference,  or  concern  of  Al¬ 
mighty  God  in  the  actions  of  men,  is  only  attempting, 
by  the  illusion  of  a  word,  to  throw  the  difficulty  out 
of  sight,  not  to  solve  it.”  6 

Dr.  Ashbel  Green  declares,  “  Evil  he  permits  to 
take  place,  and  efficaciously  overrules  it  for  good  for 
the  promotion  of  his  glory.”7  In  “Tracts  on  the 
Doctrines,  Order  and  Polity  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  ’  ’  we  have  the  following  testimony  :  ‘  ‘  The 

conclusion  is,  therefore,  to  our  minds  irresistible,  that 
if  God  be  infinitely  wise,  benevolent  and  powerful, 
and  perfectly  foreknew  what  beings  and  events  would, 
on  the  whole,  be  best,  he  must  have  chosen  and  or¬ 
dained  that  they  should  exist,  or  be  permitted  to 
occur ;  and  that  consequently  everything  that  does 
actually  come  to  pass  in  time,  has  been  eternally  and 
unchangeably  foreordained  ;  and  is  either  the  effect  of 
the  divine  efficiency,  or  the  result  of  his  predetermined 
permission.”  8 

In  volume  fifth  of  the  same  work  we  are  told, 
“Our  doctrine,  then,  is  simply  this.  By  positive  and 
permissive  decrees,  God,  in  wisdom  and  in  love,  man¬ 
ages  the  affairs  of  the  universe,  directs  and  controls 
all  things  and  all  events,  all  creatures  and  all  their 
actions.  It  must  be  so,  for  suppose  an  event  to  take 


5  Nathanael  Emmons’  “  Works,”  i860,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  343,  546. 

6  “  Natural  and  Revealed  Religion,”  p.  269. 

7  “  Lectures  on  the  Shorter  Catechism,”  p.  177. 

s  Vol.  III.,  G.  W.  Musgrave,  p.  199. 


36  CALVINISM  CONTRARY,  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

place  without  the  divine  permission,  for  example,  then 
it  must  be  either  because  God  is  not  aware  of  it,  or 
can  not  prevent  it.  If  not  aware  of  it,  he  can  not  be 
omniscient ;  if  he  can  not  prevent  it,  then  he  is  not 
omnipotent  ;  and  then,  of  course,  in  the  last  cause 
‘  there  must  be  a  power  behind  the  throne  greater  than 
the  throne  itself  ’  which  thought  would  be  frightful.”  9 
Dr.  Bellamy  taught:  ‘‘The  doctrine  of  the  wisdom 
of  God,  in  the  permission  of  sin,  supposes  sin  in  itself, 
and  in  all  its  natural  tendencies  to  be  infinitely  evil, 
infinitely  contrary  to  the  honor  of  God  and  the  good 
of  the  system.  For  herein  consists  the  wisdom  of 
God  in  the  affair,  not  in  bringing  good  out  of  good, 
but  in  bringing  infinite  good  out  of  infinite  evil ;  and 
never  suffering  one  sin  to  happen  in  all  his  dominions 
but  which,  notwithstanding  its  infinitely  evil  nature 
and  tendency,  infinite  wisdom  can  and  will  overrule 
for  greater  good  on  the  whole.  ”  1  “The  decrees  of  God 
relate  to  all  future  things  without  exception  :  Whatever 
is  done  in  time  was  foreordained  before  the  beginning 
of  time.  His  purpose  was  concerned  with  everything, 
whether  great  or  small,  whether  good  or  evil  ;  although 
in  reference  to  the  latter  it  may  be  necessary  to  dis¬ 
tinguish  between  appointment  and  permission.”  2 
“All  things  that  happen,  happen  by  the  will  of 
God,  whether  that  will  be  permissive,  directing  or 
executive.”3  “  Now,  though  sin  is  hateful  to  God, 
it  constantly  takes  place  in  his  government  ;  and  it  is 
atheism  to  say  he  could  not  prevent  it,  for  he  is  not 

9  Dan’l  Baker,  Tract  XXI. 

1  As  quoted  with  approval  by  Bennett  Tyler,  D.  D.,  in  “  kectures  on 
Theology,”  1859,  p.  218. 

2  John  Dick,  “  keetures  on  Theology,”  1856,  p.  353. 

3  Venema.  “  Institutes  of  Theology,”  1853,  p.  271. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE. 


37 


God  if  he  can  not  govern  the  world.  We  must,  there¬ 
fore,  conclude,  he  permits  it  for  reasons  unknown  to 
us.”  4  “It  will  not  do  for  us  to  say  absolutely  that 
God  could  not  have  bestowed  upon  Adam  strength 
adequate  to  his  trial  ;  all  we  can  say  is  that  this  could 
not  be  done  upon  the  principles  of  the  precise  trial 
then  made.”  5 6  Says  Pictet,  “Since  nothing  can  hap¬ 
pen  contrary  to  the  knowledge  and  will  of  God,  we 
say  that  he  permits  evil,  though  he  in  no  way  ap¬ 
proves  of  it.”  0  Dr.  A.  Alexander  says,  “  The  reason, 
then,  why  sin  was  permitted  to  exist  was,  that  God 
might  have  an  opportunity  of  manifesting  his  own 
glory  to  all  intelligent  creatures  more  conspicuously, 
which  is  the  great  end  of  all  his  works  and  dispen¬ 
sations.”  7  “The  decrees  of  God  are  not  merely 
his  purpose  to  permit  events  to  take  place  as  they  do. 
Some  hold  that,  with  regard  to  the  existence  of  sin  we 
can  only  affirm  that  the  divine  decrees  extend  to  it  in 
the  sense  that  God  determines  to  permit  it,  that  is,  not 
to  prevent  it.  But  this  language  does  not  seem  to  ex¬ 
press  the  whole  truth.  God  might,  indeed,  be  said 
to  decree  the  existence  of  whatever  he  could  have 
prevented,  but  determined  not  to  prevent.  But 
the  decrees  of  God  are  not  mere  negatives.  They  are 
purposes  to  do  something  and  to  do  that  which  ren¬ 
ders  certain  the  existence  of  all  events,  sin  included.”  8 
“  God  permitted  the  introduction  of  sin,  not  because 
he  was  unable  to  prevent  it  consistently  with  the 

4  Wm.  D.  Smith.  “What  is  Calvinism?”  p.  29. 

s  Dr.  Breckinridge.  “The  Knowledge  of  God,  Objectively  Consid¬ 
ered,”  p.  494. 

6  “  Theology,”  Reyroux’s  Translation,  p.  115. 

V  “  Compend.  of  Bible  Truth,”  pp.  74,  75. 

8  Dan’l  T.  Fiske.  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  Vol.  XIX.,  p.  404. 


38  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

moral  freedom  of  his  creatures,  but  for  wise  and  be¬ 
nevolent  reasons,  which  he  has  not  revealed.”  9 

“  The  Old  School  have  charged  the  New  with  be¬ 
lieving  that  God  could  have  prevented  the  existence 
of  sin  in  the  world,  but  not  without  destroying  the 
freedom  of  the  human  will ;  and  that  sin  is  inciden¬ 
tal  to  any  moral  system.  To  this  the  latter  reply, 
that  God  permitted  the  entrance  of  sin,  but  not  be¬ 
cause  he  was  unable  to  prevent  it ;  but  for  wise  and 
benevolent  reasons  which  he  hath  not  revealed.”  1 
Speaking  of  the  hardening  effects  of  the  divine 
dealings  with  the  Egyptians  and  Canaanites,  Pres¬ 
ident  Jeremiah  Day  remarks,  “  Will  it  be  said,  that 
God  merely  permitted  their  hearts  to  be  hardened  ;  or 
permitted  them  to  harden  their  own  hearts  ?  If  this 
be  conceded,  it  must  be  still  understood,  that  he  had 
power  to  prevent  this  result.  What  sort  of  permis¬ 
sion  is  a  mere  inability  to  prevent  that  which  is  per¬ 
mitted  ?”  2  “  Our  doctrine,  then,  concerning  the  first 

sin  committed  by  man,  and  in  which  the  human  race 
was  involved,  is  simply,  that  God  for  wise  reasons 
decreed  or  purposed,  first,  to  permit,  and  secondly,  to 
overrule  it  for  his  glory.”3  “  Whatever  occurs,  he, 
for  wise  reasons  permits  to  occur.  He  can  prevent 
whatever  he  sees  fit  to  prevent.  If,  therefore,  sin 
occurs,  it  was  God’s  design  that  it  should  occur.  If 
misery  follows  in  the  train  of  sin,  such  was  God’s 
purpose.”  4 

9  “The  Auburn  Declaration, “1837. 

1  Geo.  Duffield,  D.  D.”  Bib.  Sacra,  Vol.  XX.,  pp.  630,631. 

2  “  An  Inquiry  Respecting  the  Self-Determining  Power  of  the  Will,” 
p.  192. 

3  N.  D.  Rice,  “  God  Sovereign  and  Man  Free,”  p.  31. 

4  Dr.  Charles  Hodge.  “  Systematic Theol.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  332. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


39 


Says  Dr.  Leonard  Woods,  “Evil  does  exist.  .  .  . 
It  exists  in  a  world  formed  by  him  who  possesses 
infinite  wisdom  and  power,  and  who,  if  he  had  chosen, 
could  have  formed  and  governed  the  world  so  as  to 
exclude  it.  ”  5  “  The  admission  of  sin  into  the  creation 

of  an  infinitely  wise,  powerful  and  holy  God  is  a  great 

mystery  of  which  no  explanation  can  be  given . 

The  whole  difficulty  lies  in  the  awful  fact  that  sin 
exists.  If  God  foresaw  it  and  yet  created  the  agent, 
and  placed  him  in  the  very  circumstances  under  which 
he  did  foresee  the  sin  would  be  committed,  then  he 
did  predetermine  it.  If  he  did  not  foresee  it,  or  fore¬ 
seeing  it,  could  not  prevent  it,  then  he  is  not  infinite 
in  knowledge  and  in  power,  but  is  surprised  and  pre¬ 
vented  by  his  creatures.”  6 


5  "  Works.”  Vol.  I.,  p.  529. 

0  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge.  *'  Outlines  of  Theology,”  p.  171. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


Why  Are  the  Finally  Impenitent  Lost?  Is  it 
Because  God  Can  not  Save  Them  ? 

“  But  how,  it  may  be  asked,  when  God  is  an 
omnipotent  sovereign,  can  sin  so  come  in  and  not 
implicate  him  in  either  his  participation  or  neglect  ? 
We  answer,  according  to  our  theory  of  Rectitude,  by 
this  general  hypothesis,  and  yet,  when  clearly  appre¬ 
hended,  we  hardly  deem  it  can  be  held  merely  as 
hypothesis,  but  as  exact  truth  ;  that  sin,  in  some  form 
and  extent,  will  be  a  certain  result  of  God’s  dealings 
with  his  creatures  according  to  what  is  due  to  himself. 
In  other  words,  if  God  always  deals  with  finite  spirits 
according  to  principles  of  ‘  honor  and  right,’  there  will 

be  sin . With  a  goodness  infinitely  higher  than 

any  craving  of  a  benevolent  susceptibility  or  prompt¬ 
ing  of  nature  for  happiness,  and  of  a  wholly  distinct 
kind,  even  in  the  broad  sense  of  goodness  that  would 
have  all  that  was  worthy  for  Infinite  Excellency  to 
receive — he  planned  and  executed  the  work  of  the 
sinner’s  redemption,  and  only  fails  of  attaining  uni¬ 
versal  salvation  in  it,  from  the  perverse  rejection  of 
sinners,  in  whose  behalf  his  own  honor  will  not  allow 
his  power  and  grace  to  work  any  longer  nor  any 
further.” — A.  P.  Hickok ,  D.  D.y  LL.D. 


40 


CHAPTER  IV. 


Why  Are  the  Finarry  Impenitent  Lost  ?  Is  it 
Because  God  Can  not  Save  Them  ? 

“  Thus,  the  Augustinian  system  with  rigorous  self' 
consistence  formed  itself  as  follows  :  All  men  before 
regeneration,  and  since  Adam’s  fall,  which  corrupted 
human  nature,  both  physically  and  morally,  are  in 
essentially  one  and  the  same  state  of  alienation  from 
God,  of  spiritual  enmity  towards  him,  and  of  con¬ 
demnation  by  him.  This  state  is  one  of  self-will 
without  the  power  to  the  contrary,  and  hence  fallen 
man,  as  such,  can  do  nothing  but  evil.  He  can  be 
delivered  from  this  state  only  by  the  grace  of  God, 
who  imparts  the  principle  of  holiness  and  progressive 
sanctification  through  the  medium  of  faith  in  Christ. 
This  grace  (as  gratia  irresistibilis )  with  internal  and 
almighty  power  overcomes  the  utmost  intensity  of 
man’s  self-will  and  aversion,  and  the  recipient  of  it  is 
eternally  saved.”1  “The  wills  of  men  are  so  gov¬ 
erned  by  the  will  of  God  that  they  are  carried  on 
straight  to  the  mark  which  he  has  foreordained.”  2 
The  Synod  of  Dort  “held  that  regenerating  as 
distinct  from  common  grace  is  able  to  subdue  all  oppo¬ 
sition  of  the  sinful  will,  and  therefore  can  not  be  re¬ 
sisted  in  the  sense  of  being  defeated  or  overcome.”  3 

1  Guericke’s  ’‘Church  History.”  Shedd’s  Translatation,  p.  379. 

2  Calvin’s  “  Institutes.”  B.  I.,  Chap.  XVI.  Sec.  8. 

3  Shedd’s  “  Hist,  of  Doctrine.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  497. 

4i 


42  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

“  To  all  those  for  whom  Christ  hath  purchased  re¬ 
demption,  he  doth  certainly  and  effectually  apply  and 
communicate  the  same :  Making  intercession  for 

them,  and  revealing  unto  them,  in  and  by  the  word, 
the  mysteries  of  salvation ;  effectually  persuading 
them  by  his  Spirit  to  believe  and  obey  ;  and  govern¬ 
ing  their  hearts  by  his  word  and  Spirit.”  4  “  Luther 

compared  man  to  a  saw,  which  is  a  passive  instrument 
in  the  hands  of  the  carpenter.”5 

“Wherefore,  if  God  would  not  at  all  have  the 
death  and  destruction  of  those  vessels  of  wrath  which 
are  of  old  ordained  to  condemnation,  as  St.  Luke 
speaketh,  then  certainly,  though  all  the  armies,  both 
in  heaven  and  earth  should  band  together,  yet  could 
they  not  all  effect  the  death  of  the  meanest  or  weakest 
of  them  ;  for  who  is  able  to  resist  his  will,  who  is  Al¬ 
mighty  ?  And  who  saith  of  himself,  ‘  My  counsel 
shall  stand  and  I  will  do  whatsoever  I  will.’  Unless 
then  we  deny  the  first  article  of  our  faith,  which  is 
the  Omnipotency  of  God,  we  must  needs  confess,  that 
the  death  and  damnation  of  those  vessels  of  wrath 
cometh  to  pass  by  the  will  of  the  Almighty  :  for  if 
he  willed  it  not,  he  could,  nay,  he  would  have  hindered 
it  ten  thousand  ways.”  6 

In  a  work  entitled  “  A  Defence  of  Some  of  the  Im¬ 
portant  Doctrines  of  the  Gospel,”  the  following  testi¬ 
mony  is  given  :  “  If  election  is  an  absolute  purpose 

of  God  to  save  any  independent  of  any  conditions  to 
be  performed  by  them  which  may  render  this  purpose 
effectual  to  their  salvation,  then  it  must  be  unchange- 


4  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,”  p.  61. 

5  Hagetibach’s  “  Hist,  of  Doctrine.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  258. 

6  Richard  Crakanthorp’s  “  Sermon  on  Predestination.” 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  43 

able  ;  and  if  it  is  an  unchangeable  purpose  of  God  to 
save,  then  all  those  whom  he  thus  purposed  to  save, 
must  necessarily  and  infallibly  be  saved.  Nothing 
can  hinder,  prevent  or  disannul  their  salvation.”  7 
“  We  shall  now  inquire  whether  the  grace  of  God,  in 
the  renewing  of  a  sinner,  may  be  frustrated,  or  set 
aside,  by  the  opposition  of  the  creature.  And  here 
we  are  to  remember  it  is  God’s  work,  and  therefore 
must  be  perfect,  since  he  can  and  will  do  all  his  pleas¬ 
ure.  To  say  that  he  can  not,  though  he  would,  change 
the  sinner’s  heart,  by  an  immediate  act  of  his  own 
power,  is  to  challenge  his  omnipotence.  So  that  the 
question  is  not  whether  God  can  do  this  or  no  :  but 
whether  it  is  worthy  of  him,  and  how  far  it  is  really 
the  case  ?  ....  If  the  soul  is  passive  in  the  im¬ 

planting  the  principle  of  grace,  as  we  have  endeavored 
to  prove,  then  there  can  be  no  resistance  in  regenera¬ 
tion.” 8 

Charnock,  in  speaking  of  the  relation  of  God  to 
sin,  says,  “If  he  did  in  no  sort  will  it,  it  would  not  be 
committed  by  his  creature :  sin  entered  the  world, 
either  God  willing  the  permission  of  it,  or  not  willing 
the  permission  of  it.  The  latter  can  not  be  said  :  for 
then  the  creature  is  more  powerful  than  God,  and  can 
do  that  which  God  will  not  permit.  God  can,  if  he 
be  pleased,  banish  all  sin  in  a  moment  out  of  the 
world.”  9  “God  never  designed  to  save  every  individ¬ 
ual  ;  since,  if  he  had,  every  individual  would  and 
must  be  saved,  for  his  counsel  shall  stand,  and  he  will 


v  John  Sladen,  p.  97. 

8  Sam’l  Wilson,  pp.  319,  320. 

9  “  Attributes  of  God,”  p.  493. 


44  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

do  all  his  pleasure.”  1  “  Now,  God’s  eternal  election 

is  the  first  ground  of  the  bestowment  of  saving  grace. 
And  some  have  such  saving  grace,  and  others  do  not 
have  it  because  some  are  from  eternity  chosen  of  God, 
and  others  are  not  chosen.”  2 

Dr.  Ashbel  Green,  in  explaining  the  doctrine  of 
reprobation  says,  “  Or  will  you  say  that  he  gave  equal 
grace  to  both  ;  but  the  one  improved  it  and  the  other 
did  not?  For  the  sake  of  the  argument,  let  this  for  a 
moment  be  admitted.  But  then  I  ask  could  he  not 
have  given  grace  that  certainly  would  have  been  effect¬ 
ual  to  him  who  remains  without  religion  ?  You  will 
not  so  limit  God  and  his  grace,  as  to  say  he  could  not. 
But  he  actually  did  not.  He  left  the  person  in  ques¬ 
tion  without  effectual  grace.  And  here  is  all  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  reprobation  which  we  hold.”  3  Dr.  Nathanael 
Emmons  says  of  God,  “  He  decreed  the  existence,  the 
character,  the  conduct  and  the  state  of  all  moral  be¬ 
ings  both  in  time  and  eternity.  He  decreed  that  some 
should  be  the  monuments  of  his  goodness,  some  the 
monuments  of  his  justice  ;  and  some  the  monuments 
of  his  mercy.  And  he  decreed  all  the  means  by  which 
his  rational  creatures  should  be  brought  to  their  final 

and  eternal  condition . It  is  his  secret  will  that 

all  the  elect  shall  repent  and  believe  ;  and  that  all  the 
non-elect  shall  live  and  die  in  impenitence  and  unbe¬ 
lief.”4  In  the  same  spirit  Dr.  E.  D.  Griffin  taught, 
.  .  .  .  ‘  ‘  God  has  the  absolute  control  of  mind  in  all 
its  common  operations,  else  how  could  he  govern  the 


1  Toplady’s  “  Works,”  p.  692. 

2  Edwards’  “  Christian  hove,”  p.  321. 

3  “  Lectures  on  the  Shorter  Catechism,”  p.  288. 

4  ”  Works.”  Vol.  II.,  pp.  333-346. 


AND  MAN'S  MORAR  NATURE. 


45 


world  ?  Whether  he  does  this  by  the  mere  force  of 
motives  adapted  to  the  existing  temper,  or  sometimes 
by  a  lower  sort  of  efficienc}^  not,  however,  productive 
of  sin,  I  will  not  determine.  But  the  fact  is  incon¬ 
trovertible . Even  in  the  motions  of  sin  (though 

only  permissively  I  suppose),  his  government  is  effect¬ 
ual.”  5  The  following  is  from  Dr.  John  Dick  :  “  The 

term  predestination,  includes  the  decrease  of  election 
and  reprobation.  Some,  indeed,  confine  it  to  election  ; 
but  there  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  not  ex¬ 
tending  it  to  the  one  as  well  as  to  the  other ;  as  in 
both  the  final  condition  of  man  is  pre-appointed  or 
predestinated . They  (the  non-elect)  were  ap¬ 

pointed  to  wrath  for  their  sins  ;  but  it  was  not  for 
their  sins  as  we  have  shown,  but  in  the  exercise  of 
sovereignty,  that  they  were  rejected.”6 

Commenting  on  the  passage  “  Surely  the  wrath  of 
man  shall  praise  thee,”  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins  says, 

.  .  .  .  “  God  does  superintend  and  direct  with  regard 
to  every  instance  of  sin.  He  orders  how  much  sin 
there  shall  be,  and  effectually  restrains  and  prevents 
all  that  which  he  would  not  have  take  place. 
Men  are,  with  respect  to  this,  absolutely  under  his 
direction  and  control.”  7  “  When  any  are  lost,  we  do 

not  hesitate  to  say  that  they  perish  by  their  own  de¬ 
serts,  although  God  could  have  mercifully  saved  them 
had  it  pleased  him.”8  “  He  carries  on  all  beings  to 
their  end,  and  so  rules  them  as  that  now  misseth  it. 
There  is  a  peculiar  subordinate  end,  and  there  is  an 


5  “The  Doctrine  of  Divine  Efficiency,”  pp.  95,  98. 

6  “  Eectures  on  Theology,”  pp.  360,  373. 

7  “Works.”  Vol.  I.,  p.  98. 

8  Pictet’s  “  Theology,”  p.  213. 


46  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

universal,  general  and  last  end  :  the  creature  may  miss 
the  former  but  not  the  latter.”  9 

‘  ‘  So  that  if  we  admit  that  the  works  of  God  are 
known  to  him  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  it  can 
never  be  true  that  in  his  eternal  counsels,  Christ  died 
to  save  those,  who  after  all  that  he  hath  done  shall  be 
miserable  forever.  ‘  He  is  a  rock — his  work  is  perfect.  ’ 
His  design  never  could  be  frustrated.”  1  “  God  has 

purposed  by  a  positive  act  of  his  will,  not  only  to  con¬ 
demn  unbelievers,  but  also  to  withhold  from  some 
sufficient  grace,  on  which  withholding,  as  we  shall 
see,  when  we  come  to  treat  of  the  doctrine  of  repro¬ 
bation,  depends  the  final  ruin  of  the  impenitent.  Com- 
mon  grace,  of  which  even  those  who  perish  partake, 
consists  in  the  offer  of  Christ,  made  in  the  Gospel,  an 
offer  which  is  intended  by  God  to  be  made  to  all,  and 
in  which  no  one  at  least  is  excluded.  But  besides  this 
common  grace,  there  is  particular  and  efficacious  grace 
which  is  bestowed  only  on  some,  and  which  is  so  inti¬ 
mately  connected  with  salvation  that  it  begets  faith  in 
those  to  whom  it  is  given,  i.  e .,  the  elect.  This  grace, 
as  we  shall  afterwards  show,  is  irresistible.  ”  2  In  the 
celebrated  Auburn  Declaration  of  1837,  which  was  a 
peace-offering  from  the  New  to  the  Old  School  Pres¬ 
byterians,  we  are  told  :  “  While  repentance  for  sin  and 
faith  in  Christ  are  indispensable  to  salvation,  all  who 
are  saved  are  indebted  from  first  to  last  to  the  grace 
and  spirit  of  God.  And  the  reason  that  God  does  not 
save  all  is  not  that  he  wants  the  power  to  do  it,  but 
that  in  his  wisdom  he  does  not  see  fit  to  exert  that 


9  Willard.  “Complete  Body  of  Divinity,”  p.  143. 

1  John  Witherspoon.  “  Works,”  Vol.  I.,  p.  342. 

2  Venema’s  “  Institutes  of  Theology,”  pp.  297,  298,  299. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  47 

power  further  than  he  actually  does . While  all 

such  as  reject  the  gospel  of  Christ  do  it  not  by  coer¬ 
cion  but  freely,  and  all  who  embrace  it,  do  it  not  by 
coercion  but  freely,  the  reason  why  some  differ  from 
others  is  that  God  has  made  them  to  differ.”  8 

The  following  from  the  “  Princeton  Essays,”  con¬ 
demns  Arminianism  and  gives  the  true  Calvinistic 
doctrine.  “  These  views  of  human  agency  are  such, 
that  God  is  virtually  represented  as  unable  to  control 
the  moral  exercises  of  his  creatures  ;  that  notwith¬ 
standing  all  that  he  can  do  they  may  yet  act  counter 
to  his  wishes,  and  sin  on  in  despite  of  all  the  influence 
which  he  can  exert  over  them  consistently  with  their 
free  agency.  If  this  be  not  to  emancipate  the  whole 
intelligent  universe  from  the  control  of  God  and  destroy 
all  the  foundations  of  our  hopes  in  his  promises  we 
know  not  what  it  is.  When  sinners  are  thus  repre¬ 
sented  as  depending  on  themselves,  God  having  done 
all  he  can,  exhausted  all  his  power  in  vain  for  their 
conversion — how  they  can  be  made  to  feel  that  they 
are  in  his  hands,  depending  on  his  sovereign  grace, 
we  can  not  conceive.”  4 

“Effectual  calling  is  a  work  of  God’s  infinite 

grace,  executed  by  his  Almighty  power . The 

moving  and  original  cause  of  our  personal  salvation, 
and  so  of  our  effectual  calling  of  God  is  not  at  all  nor 
in  any  degree  anything  in  us  ;  but  is  the  free  and 
especial  love  of  God  for  his  elect  according  to  his 

eternal  purpose  and  grace  in  Jesus  Christ . In 

this  work  of  divine  renovation,  man  is  wholly  passive. 

.  .  .  .  I  have  said  repeatedly  that  the  absolute  domin- 


3  As  quoted  by  Geo.  Duffield,  D.  D.,  in  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  July,  1863, 

4  “  Princeton  Review,”  1846,  p.  303. 


48  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

ion  of  God  ever  man,  and  the  absolute  dependence  of 
man  on  God.  are  the  fundamental  truths  that  control 
all  the  relations  between  God  and  man.”  5  “If  God 
could  as  easily  have  saved  all  as  a  part,  why  did  he 
not  manifest  his  goodness  in  doing  so  ?  To  which  it 
may  be  answered,  that  we  do  not  know  the  reasons  of 
the  divine  conduct  in  this  matter.  He,  as  an  absolute 
Sovereign,  has  a  right  to  do  as  seemeth  good  with  his 
own.”  6  Speaking  of  man’s  ignorance  of,  and  his 
inability  to  grasp  divine  things,  Professor  B.  B.  Ed¬ 
wards  says,  “If  he  undertakes  to  examine  the  mode 
of  operation  in  any  of  the  works  of  God,  he  will  be 
baffled  at  every  step.  His  curiosity  prompts  him  to 
do  this,  but  his  powers  are  incompetent.  He  has  a 
strong  desire  to  know  the  manner  in  which  God  works 
in  the  world  of  mind — how  he  controls  free  agents, 
while  yet  they  are  conscious  of  perfect  freedom — why 
God  elects  some,  in  his  mere  sovereign  pleasure  unto 
everlasting  life,  why  he  did  not  long  since  communi¬ 
cate  the  blessings  of  salvation  to  the  whole  family  of 
man.”  7 

“  In  regeneration  men  are  wholly  passive  ;  as  they 
also  are  in  the  first  moment  of  conversion,  but  by  it 
become  active.  Regeneration  is  an  irresistible  act  of 
God’s  grace  ;  no  more  resistance  can  be  made  to  it, 
than  there  could  be  by  the  first  matter  in  its  creation, 
or  by  a  dead  man  in  his  resurrection.”  8 

“  The  operations  of  the  Spirit  in  regeneration  are 
efficacidus  or  invincible.  By  this  I  mean  what  the  old 

5R.  J.  Breckenridge.  “The  Knowledge  of  God  Subjectively  Consid¬ 
ered,”  pp.  132,  156,  55. 

6  Dr.  A.  Alexander.  “  Compend  of  Bible  Truth,”  p.  102. 

<  “  Writings,”  Vol.  I.,  p.  283 

SAlvan  Tobey.  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  Vol.  XVIII.,  p.  382. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


49 


divines  meant  by  irresistible  grace . He  who 

subdued  the  heart  of  the  persecuting  Saul,  and  who 
cast  seven  devils  out  of  Mary  Magdalene,  can,  if  he 
please,  make  any  sinner  a  trophy  of  his  grace.”  * 

“The  whole  matter,  therefore,  resolves  itself  into 
the  two  questions  :  i .  Can  God  exercise  over  men  a 
particular  providence  so  as  to  bring  to  pass  his  wise 
purposes,  without  destroying  or  impairing  their  free 
agency  ?  2.  Can  God  exert  upon  the  minds  of  men, 

providentially  and  by  his  Spirit,  a  Divine  influence 
that  will  certainly  lead  them  to  Christ,  and  induce 
them  to  persevere  in  his  service,  without  interfering 
with  their  liberty  ?  These  questions  have  already 
been  answered.  We  have  seen  that  the  providence  of 
God  extends  to  all  things  and  events,  and  that  he  can 
so  govern  even  wicked  men  as  to  fulfill  his  purposes 
without  interfering  with  their  freedom  of  choice.”  1 
Leaving  a  sinner  to  his  own  evil  way  is,  according 
to  Dr.  Albert  Barnes,  .  .  .  “an  act  of  sovereignty  on  the 
part  of  God,  ....  and  in  not  putting  forth  that  in¬ 
fluence  by  which  he  could  be  saved  from  death.” 
Speaking  of  the  passage  “  For  there  is  no  respect  of 
persons  with  God,”  he  says,  “  It  does  not  imply  that 
he  may  not  bestow  his  favors  where  he  pleases,  where 
all  are  undeserving  ;  or  that  he  may  not  make  a  dif¬ 
ference  in  the  characters  of  men  by  his  providence  and 
by  the  agency  of  his  Spirit.”2  Combating  the  Armin- 
ian  doctrine  that  God  saves  all  whom  he  can,  Dr. 
Nehemiah  Adams  affirms  “  This  can  not  be.  We  can 
not  fully  revere  one  whom  we  pity.  We  prefer  to 


9  Bennett  Tyler.  “Lectures  on  Theology,"  p.  359. 

1  N.  L.  Rice,  D.  D.  “God  Sovereign  and  Man  Free,"  p.  83. 

2  “Commentary"  on  Romans,  pp.  197,  58. 


50  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

place  every  man,  angel  and  devil,  with  every  holy  and 
sinful  act,  and  the  eternal  happiness  or  misery  of  every 
one  of  us  in  the  hands  of  an  infinitely  wise  and  power¬ 
ful  God  and  pray  that  he  would  order  everything 
with  a  view  to  the  highest  interest  of  his  universal 
Kingdom.”  3  For  the  following,  we  are  indebted  to 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge.  It  gives  no  uncertain  sound.  “  If 
some  men  only  are  saved,  while  others  perish,  such 
must  have  entered  into  the  all-comprehending  purpose 
of  God.”  Again,  speaking  of  common  grace  and  the 
non-elect,  he  says,  “That  while  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
his  common  operations,  is  present  with  every  man,  so 
long  as  he  lives,  restraining  evil  and  exciting  good, 
his  certainly  efficacious  and  saving  power  is  exercised 
only  in  behalf  of  the  elect.”  4 

Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  says  “  It  rests  only  with  God 
himself  to  save  all,  many,  few  or  none.”  He  informs 
us  that  “  Reprobation  is  the  aspect  which  God’s  eternal 
decree  presents  in  its  relation  to  that  portion  of  the 
human  race  which  shall  be  finally  condemned  for  their 
sins.  It  is  first,  negative,  inasmuch  as  it  consists  in 
passing  over  these,  and  refusing  to  elect  them  to  life  ; 
and  second,  positive,  inasmuch  as  they  are  con¬ 
demned  to  eternal  misery.  In  respect  to  its  negative 
element,  reprobation  is  simply  sovereign,  since  those 
passed  over  were  no  worse  than  those  elected,  and  the 
simple  reason  both  for  the  choosing  and  for  the  pass¬ 
ing  over,  was  the  sovereign  good  pleasure  of  God.”  5 

The  reader  is  now  in  a  position  where  he  can  read- 


3  "Evenings  with  the  Doctrines,”  p.  255. 

4  “  Systematic  Theology,”  Vol.  II.,  pp.  332,  333. 

5  “  Outlines  of  Theology,”  pp.  181,  184. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


51 


ily  and  intelligently  judge  of  the  true  nature  of  Cal¬ 
vinism.  All  minor  points  in  the  system  have  been 
avoided  beeause  (1)  They  are  logically  involved  in 
the  preceding  principles.  Hence  such  doctrines  as 
Original  Sin,  and  Imputation,  or  the  Federal  Head-ship 
of  Adam,  are  but  means  to  an  end  ;  intermediate  steps 
by  which  the  unconditional  sovereignty  of  God  is  made 
to  appear  less  repulsive  and  more  reasonable.  Once 
grant  that  God  can  decree  or  has  eternally  decreed  a 
man’s  destiny  irrespective  of  divine  foresight  of  what 
that  person’s  character  shall  freely  be,  you  have  logic¬ 
ally  conceded  all  :  the  other  doctrines  simply  explain 
how  the  result  is  reached.  (2)  Tike  other  theological 
systems,  Calvinism  in  its  minor  doctrines  is  variously 
interpreted.  Prof.  Henry  B.  Smith  has  said,  “  Cal¬ 
vinism,  in  its  historical  growth,  has  assumed  a  variety 
of  forms.  It  has  been  prolific  in  systems.”  6  Hence 
Old  and  New  School  Calvinism,  while  agreeing  on 
God’s  sovereignty,  differently  explain  such  doctrines 
as  Original  Sin,  Imputation  and  Ability.  Thus  Dr. 
Albert  Barnes  was  tried  for  heresy  because  he  did  not 
accept  among  other  doctrines  the  Old  School  view  of 
Imputation.7 


6  “  Faith  and  Philosophy,”  p.  225. 

7  “  To  say  that  I  am  blameworthy,  or  ill  deserving  for  a  sin  in  which  I 
had  no  agency,  is  no  explanation,  but  is  involving  me  in  an  additional  dif¬ 
ficulty  still  more  perplexing  to  ascertain  how  such  a  doctrine  can  possibly 
be  just.”  “Commentary.”  Rom.,  p.122. 


PART  II. 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD. 

“  Let  it  be  remembered  as  a  very  just  and  very  im¬ 
portant  remark  of  Doddridge,  that  the  plain  sense  of 
the  Scriptures,  or  that  which  naturally  strikes  the 
minds  of  plain  men  as  the  real  meaning  is  almost  of 
course  the  true  sense.” — Timothy  Dwight ,  D.  D. 


53 


— 


/ 


PART  II. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Calvinism  Teaches  a  Rimited  Atonement. 

In  a  discussion  where  the  Scriptures  are  the  crite¬ 
rion,  it  is  certainly  appropriate  to  consider  the  leading 
principles  of  Biblical  interpretation.  Not  a  few  in  all 
ages  have  considered  the  Bible  a  book  of  contradic¬ 
tions.  Almost  every  heresy  in  theology  and  many 
disorders  in  society  have  possessed  advocates  who 
have  claimed  protection  from  the  Scriptures.  Thus 
the  crime  of  slavery  was  prolonged  for  centuries  ;  the 
pretended  revelations  of  Mormonism — that  festering 
and  contaminating  sore  on  the  body  politic — have 
been,  and  are  now  accepted  by  not  a  few,  because  of 
their  alleged  agreement  with  the  word  of  God. 

Hence  there  are  men  that,  perplexed  by  the  many 
different  theories  and  systems  of  thought  ;  and  not 
possessing  sufficient  time  and  skill  to  expose  the  soph¬ 
isms,  grow  skeptical  concerning  the  authority  of  the 
Bible,  and  like  Pilate,  cry  despairingly  “What  is 
truth  ?  ’  ’ 

But  beyond  all  successful  contradiction  the  Bible  is 
God’s  revelation.  It  is  for  the  instruction  and  guid¬ 
ance  of  the  human  race.  A  unity  pervades  its  pages. 
It  was  meant  to  teach  something  :  not  anything  and 
everything.  While  it  contains  “  some  things  hard  to 

55 


56  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

be  understood,”  while  it  teaches  mysteries  which  the 
human  reason  can  not  fathom,  yet  the  underlying 
principles,  the  essentials  of  salvation  are  so  clearly 
revealed  that  “  the  wayfaring  men,  though  fools,  shall 
not  err  therein.”  Jesus  Christ  is  “the  true  Light 
which  ligliteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world  ’  ’ : 
consequently  he  affirmed  concerning  the  unbelieving 
Jews,  “  If  I  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto  them  ,  they 
had  not  had  sin  ;  but  now  they  have  no  cloke  for  their 
sin.” 

The  Calvinist  has  been  justly  admired  for  his  ad¬ 
herence  to  the  divine  Word.  The  spirit  which  prompts 
him  to  go  to  the  Law  and  the  Prophets  to  search  the 
Scriptures  for  the  reason  of  the  hope  which  is  within 
him  is  worthy  of  all  emulation.  While  it  is  hoped  the 
same  spirit  will  animate  the  present  discussion,  the 
methods  of  interpretation  adopted  may  be  designated  as 
follows:  (i)  The  clearly  revealed  Scriptures  are  to 
have  the  pre-eminence  ;  hence  (2)  The  less  clearly  re¬ 
vealed  Scriptures  are  to  be  interpreted  by  the  former. 

(3)  The  context  must  be  allowed  its  full  weight ;  and 

(4)  the  Analogy  of  Faith,  or  general  harmony  of  Script¬ 
ure  must  be  preserved. 

SECTION  1. 

Terms  Defined.  The  Problem  Stated. 

In  this  discussion  the  term  atonement  is  used  in  its 
broadest  sense.  Objectively  considered  it  refers  to  the 
vicarious  sufferings  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  satisfy¬ 
ing  the  divine  law.  Considered  subjectively  it  refers 
to  the  results  of  Christ’s  [perfect  life  and]  sacrificial 
death  which  may  be  called  salvation  or  redemption 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


57 


from  sin.  This  salvation  is  possible,  and  actual  even 
as  it  is,  or  is  not  appropriated  by  the  individual.  Says 
Dr.  Samuel  D.  Cochran  :  “This  substitutional,  expia¬ 
tory,  righteous  act  of  Christ,  having  this  infinite  value, 
is  provisional  for  all  human  sinners,  but  made  actual 
only  for  those  who  appropriate  it  by  faith.”1  Hence 
the  atonement  objectively  considered  is  the  ground  on 
which  salvation  is  offered  to  all.  By  the  vicarious 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  God’s  veracity  and  justice  are 
exalted,  and  his  infinite  hatred  of  sin,  but  boundless 
love  for  the  sinner  wondrously  revealed.  God’s  gov¬ 
ernment  is  honored  while  at  the  same  time  his  mercy 
is  freely  extended  to  all.  But  all  men  do  not  accept 
this  mercy  :  therefore  the  question  before  us  is,  For 
whom  did  Christ  die  ?  For  all  men,  or  for  a  certain 
number  called  the  “  elect  ”  ?  Was  it  the  will  of  God 
that  Christ  should  die  for  all  in  a  certain  sense — so 
that  all  may  and  do  receive  benefits  therefrom,  but 
only  for  the  elect  in  a  saving  or  efficacious  sense  ?  Or 
did  he  die  for  all  men  in  the  same  sense?  Calvinists 
answer  these  questions  by  saying  :  “  Christ  died  meri¬ 
toriously  for  all,  efficaciously  only  for  the  elect.”  To 
this  effect  is  the  declaration  of  the  Westminster  Con¬ 
fession  of  Faith.  “  As  God  hath  appointed  the  elect 
unto  glory,  so  hath  he  by  the  eternal  and  most  free 
purpose  of  his  will,  foreordained  all  the  means  there¬ 
unto.  Wherefore  they  who  are  elected  being  fallen  in 
Adam,  are  redeemed  by  Christ  by  his  Spirit  working 
in  due  season  ;  are  justified,  adopted,  sanctified,  and 
kept  by  his  power  through  faith  unto  salvation. 
Neither  are  any  other  redeemed  by  Christ,  effectually 


1  “  The  Moral  System  and  the  Atonement,”  p.  245. 


58  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

called,  justified,  adopted,  sanctified  and  saved,  but  the 
elect  only.”2 

The  following  is  from  Dr.  Lyman  Atwater.  ‘  ‘  All 
who  know  anything  of  the  Westminster  standards, 
know  that  they  represent  Christ  as  the  ‘  Redeemer  of 
God’s  elect,’  and  that  they  limit  the  redemptive  effi¬ 
cacy  of  his  death  to  his  people.”3  “Our  Saviour, 
likewise,  in  the  course  of  his  preaching,  taught  the 

doctrine  of  reprobation  in  plain  and  pointed  terms. 

% 

He  told  some  of  his  obstinate  hearers  that  he  came 
into  the  world  to  save  the  elect,  and  destroy  the  non¬ 
elect.”4 

New  England,  or  modern  Calvinism  differs  from 
that  of  the  Westminster  symbol  concerning  the  extent 
of  the  atonement.  Dr.  H.  B.  Smith  says  of  Emmons  : 
“He  symbolized  with  the  younger  Edwards  and  Hop¬ 
kins,  and  opposed  the  older  Calvinism  as  to  the  extent 
of  the  atonement,  proclaiming  it  to  be  universal  in  its 
provisions.”  To  the  Arminian,  this  is  a  distinction 
without  any  essential  difference  ;  for  while  the  methods 
are  diverse,  the  results  reached  by  both  systems  of 
Calvinism  are  the  same. 

The  old  view  conceives  God  as  really  inviting  none 
but  the  elect,  while  according  to  the  new  school  theo¬ 
logy,  the  entire  human  race  is  urged  to  accept  salva¬ 
tion.  The  latter  certainly  appears  more  reasonable  : 
but  as  it  is  explained  by  new  school  advocates  it  is 
mere  logomachy.  Thus  Dr.  Barnes  says  of  the  tenth 
chapter  of  Romans,  “  In  the  closing  part  of  this  chap¬ 
ter  the  great  doctrine  is  brought  forth  and  defended, 


2  p.  29. 

3  “Bib.  Sacra,”  Vol.  XXI.,  p.  116. 

4  Emmons.  “Works,”  Vol.  II.,  p.  396. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


59 


that  the  way  of  salvation  is  open  for  all  the  world.”5 
But  how  is  the  way  of  salvation  open  to  all  the  world  ? 
In  the  sense  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  God  to  save  all 
whom  the  divine  foresight  saw  would  freely  accept 
Jesus  ?  By  no  means ;  for  as  we  have  seen,  Dr.  Barnes, 
with  all  consistent  Calvinists,  denies  foresight  as  the 
ground  or  basis  of  election.  Here  are  his  words  as  he 
explained  his  position  before  the  Philadelphia  Synod : 
‘‘I  may  safely  challenge  any  man  to  point  out  the 
place  in  the  whole  book  (the  Confession  of  Faith) 
where  it  is  affirmed  that  the  work  of  Christ  in  its 
original  applicability  is  necessarily  confined  to  any 
number  or  class  of  men.”  Once  more  :  “  To  the  Re¬ 
deemer’s  sufferings  and  death  contemplated  apart  from 
the  actual  purpose  to  apply  his  merits,  I  chose,  in 
accordance  with  many  writers,  to  apply  the  word 
atonement.  The  actual  application  of  his  work,  I 
supposed  might  be  appropriately  expressed  by  the 
word  redemption.  It  was  not  thought  that  this  was  a 
departure  from  Scripture  usage.  The  word  atonement 
occurs  but  once,  as  applicable  to  the  death  of  Christ 
in  the  New  Testament :  the  word  redemption  often, 
and  this  latter  word  always  with  reference  to  the  pur¬ 
pose  to  apply  it.  It  did  not  seem  then,  to  be  a  gross 
violation  of  the  Scripture  usage  to  describe  by  the 
word  atonement  a  thing  which  may  and  must  be  con¬ 
templated  the  highest  and  best  gift  of  God — the  suf¬ 
ferer,  the  bleeding  victim,  the  atoning  sacrifice  ;  still 
less  can  it  be  seen  how  this  usage  can  be  construed 
into  an  offense  against  the  Confession  of  Faith.  In  all 
our  standards  of  doctrine  the  word  atonement  never 
occurs.  Nor  is  it  the  purpose  of  the  standards  to 


5  i  Com. 


60  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

describe  the  thing  which  I  wished  to  express  by  the 
word,  the  original,  independent  applicability  of  the 
sufferings  of  Christ.  The  Confession  of  Faith  states 
only  its  application.  For  that  it  uses  the  word  re¬ 
demption.  It  affirms  of  that,  that  it  is  limited  and 
was  intended  to  be  limited.  That  the  sermon  never 
denied.”  c  Certainly  a  most  wonderful,  and  to  the 
present  discussion,  valuable  confession.  It  shows  (i) 
Dr.  Barnes’  essential  agreement  with  the  Confession 
of  Faith.  (2)  When  he  declares  “that  the  way  of 
salvation  is  open  to  all  ’  ’  he  means  that  the  atonement, 
the  objective  atonement  is  applicable  to  all ;  and  as 
thus  applicable  to  all  is  but  once  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament:  and  (3)  That  redemption  which 
often  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  is  limited — is 
meant  to  be  limited  to  the  elect. 

The  problem  is  now  clearly  before  the  reader. 
The  Arminian  declaring,  and  the  Calvinist  denying 
that  so  far  as  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ  is  concerned, 
it  had  an  equal  reference  to  every  man,  and  thus  is 
the  basis  of  God’s  offer  of  mercy  to  the  entire  race. 

Over  the  gates  of  Plato’s  school  were  the  words, 

‘  ‘  Fet  no  one  not  a  geometrician  enter  here  ’  ’  ;  but  the 
Word  says,  “  Ho,  every  one  that  thirsteth,  come  ye  to 
the  waters,  and  he  that  hath  no  money;  come  ye,  buy 
and  eat;  yea,  come,  buy  wine  and  milk  without 
money  and  without  price.”  (Isa.  lv.  1. ) 


6  “  Christian  Spectator,”  1831,  pp.  294,  295. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


6l 

SECTION  II. 

Concessions  of  Calvmists.  Illustrating  Certain  Passages 

of  Scrip  hire. 

According  to  Dr.  William  Smith  “election  em¬ 
braces  no  decree  or  purpose  that  hinders  any  one  from 
coming  to  Christ  and  being  saved  if  they  would. 
There  is  nothing  that  hinders  their  salvation  but  their 
own  aversion  to  holiness  and  their  love  of  sin  ;  and  it 
is  for  this  that  God  has  purposed  to  damn  them.’’ 7 

Dr.  Milner  says  “All  men  may  be  saved  if  they 
please.  There  wants  the  will  only.  But  such  is  our 
natural  enmity  against  God,  that  though  the  blood  of 
his  Son  was  freely  spilt  for  all  men  without  exception, 
not  one  soul  would  return  to  God  by  true  repentance, 
were  it  not  for  his  blessed  and  adorable  purpose  of 
election,  which  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
determined  that  some  souls  should  be  benefited  by 
his  universal  redemption  and  led  to  repentance  toward 
God,  to  faith  toward  our  Tord  Jesus  Christ.”  8 

Speaking  of  the  election  of  some,  Dr.  Nehemiah 
Adams  affirms  “  No  injustice  is  done  to  those  who  are 
left :  salvation  is  consistently  offered  to  them,  and 
their  state  is  no  worse  than  though  all  like  them  had 
perished.”  9  Dr.  H.  B.  Smith,  speaking  of  the  differ¬ 
ences  between  the  Old  and  New  School  Calvinists  says, 

‘ 1  And  as  to  the  limits  of  the  atonement  if  we  do  not 
raise  the  intricate  questions  of  the  order  of  the  decrees 
and  the  specific  terms  of  the  covenant  of  redemption, 
little  more  than  a  verbal  dispute  remains  so  soon  as 


7  “  What  is  Calvinism  ?  ”  p.  50. 

8  As  quoted  by  G.  S.  Faber.  “The  Primitive  Doctrine  of  Election,’’ 
London,  1862.  p.  43. 

9  “Evenings  with  the  Doctrines,”  p.  246. 


62  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

we  agree  that  the  oblation  made  by  Christ  is  sufficient 
for  all,  is  to  be  offered  to  all,  enhances  the  guilt  of 
those  who  reject  it ;  and  also  had  some  special  respect 
in  the  comprehensive  divine  purpose  to  the  elect.”  1 
The  difficulties  pertaining  to  Calvinistic  doctrine 
of  Decrees  and  the  gospel  invitations  constrained  Dr. 
John  Dick  to  speak  as  follows:  “There  is  a  greater 
difficulty  here  than  orthodox  divines  sometimes  seem 
willing  to  acknowledge  and  the  mode  in  which  they 

meet  it,  is  not  always  satisfactory . He  who  sees 

no  difficulty  here,  has  not,  as  he  possibly  imagines, 
more  understanding  than  other  men,  but  less.”  2 

Dr.  Isaac  Watts  is  more  positive  and  presents  a 
view,  which  to  some  is  quite  plausible.  Of  the  non¬ 
elect  he  says,  “God  himself  has  put  no  effectual  and 
insurmountable  bar,  or  rather  no  bar  at  all,  in  their 
way,  to  prevent  their  acceptance  of  his  grace.  His 
choosing  other  persons,  to  make  them  certain  par¬ 
takers  of  this  grace,  is  no  hindrance  to  those  who  were 
not  chosen,  from  accepting  the  same.  It  is  my  opin¬ 
ion  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  general  sufficiency 
of  pardon,  grace  and  happiness  provided  for  all  man¬ 
kind  by  Jesus  Christ.  And  it  is  left  to  their  own  nat¬ 
ural  powers  under  common  helps  to  accept  or  refuse 
it.”  Then  follow  the  reasons  for  the  above.  “  It  is 
very  hard  to  vindicate  the  sincerity  of  the  blessed  God, 
or  his  Son,  in  their  universal  offers  of  grace  and  salva¬ 
tion  to  men,  and  their  sending  ministers  with  such 
messages  and  invitations  to  accept  of  mercy,  if  there 
be  no  such  a  conditional  pardon  and  salvation  pro¬ 
vided  for  them . It  is  hard  to  suppose  that  the 


1  “  Faith  and  Philosophy.1'  p.  286. 

2  “  Lectures  on  Theology,”  p.  375. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  63 

great  God,  who  is  truth  itself,  and  sincere  and  faithful 
in  all  his  dealings,  should  call  upon  dying  men  to  trust 
in  a  Saviour  for  eternal  life,  when  this  Saviour  has  not 
eternal  life  intrusted  with  him  to  give  them,  if  they 
do  repent.  It  is  hard  to  conceive  how  the  great  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  the  world  can  be  sincere  in  inviting  and  re¬ 
quiring  sinners  who  are  on  the  brink  of  hell  to  cast 
themselves  upon  an  empty  word  of  invitation — a  mere 
shadow  and  appearance  of  support  if  there  be  nothing 
real  to  bear  them  up  from  those  deeps  of  destruction, 
and  nothing  but  mere  words  and  empty  invitations.” 
Yet  he  says,  ‘  ‘  It  seems  evident  to  me  from  several 
texts  of  the  Word  of  God  that  Christ  did  not  die  with 
an  equal  design  for  all  men  ;  but  that  there  is  a 
special  number  whom  the  Father  chose  and  gave  to 
the  Son,  whose  salvation  is  absolutely  secured  by  the 
death  and  intercession  of  Christ.”  3 

Agreeing  with  Dr.  Watts,  Dr.  Venerna  says, 
“  Common  grace,  of  which  even  those  who  perish  par¬ 
take,  consists  in  the  offer  of  Christ  made  in  the  gospel, 
an  offer  which  is  intended  by  God  to  be  made  to  all, 
and  in  which  no  one  at  least  is  excluded.  ....  All 
have  common  grace,  and  it  is  possible  for  all  to  believe  ; 
and  if  they  will  believe  they  will  be  saved.”  This  is 
called  a  general  predestination  ;  or,  ‘  ‘  a  general  purpose 
on  the  part  of  God  to  save  those  who  believe — a  pur¬ 
pose  which  had  reference  also  to  those  who  rejected 
it.”  If  God  has  not  such  a  general  decree  or  purpose, 
“  then  we  can  not  hold  that  God  seriously  wills  that 
all  men  should  receive  the  proposition  made  to  them. 
If,  however,  he  does  so  will,  then  it  must  have  refer¬ 
ence  to  all  who  read  or  hear  it,  and  the  purpose  by 


3  “  Works,”  needs  edition,  Vol.  III.,  p.  468. 


64  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

which  he  has  ordained  a  connection  between  faith  and 
salvation  must  be  general.  We  are  aware,  indeed, 
that  there  is  a  particular  connection  which  has  refer¬ 
ence  only  to  the  elect.  Yet  this  proposition  is  made 
to  all  without  distinction.  For  it  would  be  absurd  to 
suppose  that  God  says  to  all  ‘  believe  and  ye  shall  be 
saved’ ;  and  yet  that  he  does  not  will  that  they  should 
believe  and  be  saved.”  4 

Alluding  to  the  relation  of  conviction  and  practice, 
President  Edwards  remarks,”  And  so  if  men  are  really 
convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  things  they  are  told  in 
the  gospel,  about  an  eternal  world,  and  the  everlasting 
salvation  that  Christ  has  purchased  for  all  that  will 
accept  it,  it  will  influence  their  practice.”5  Dr. 
Hodge  sa}\s,  “The  righteousness  of  Christ  being  of 
infinite  value  or  merit,  and  being  in  its  nature  precisely 
what  all  men  need,  may  be  offered  to  all  men.  It  is 
thus  offered  to  the  elect  and  to  the  non-elect ;  and  it  is 
offered  to  both  classes  conditionally.  That  condition 
is  a  cordial  acceptance  of  it  as  the  only  ground  of  jus¬ 
tification.  If  any  of  the  elect  (being  adults)  fail  thus 
to  accept  of  it,  they  perish.  If  any  of  the  non-elect 
should  believe,  they  would  be  saved.  What  more 
does  any  Anti-Augustinian  scheme  provide  ?  6 


4  “Institutes.”  pp.  278,  303-305.  This,  as  I  said  of  the  theory  of  Dr. 
Watts,  is  plausible  to  some  minds.  Beneath  the  surface,  however,  there  is 
the  true  Calvinistic  doctrine  that  faith — without  which  no  one  can  be  saved 
— is  a  gift  of  God,  given  to  some,  withheld  from  others. 

5  “  Christian  Love,”  p.  333. 

6  “Theology.”  Vol.  II.,  p.555,  “  If  any  of  the  elect.”  This  is  a  wise 

provision,  for  elsewhere  Dr.  Hodge  says  that  the  death  of  Christ  renders 
“  the  ultimate  salvation  of  the  elect  absolutely  certain.  Of  the  non-elect, 
he  declares  they  are  “  in  a  state  of  condemnation,  sin  and  misery,  from 
which  they  are  utterly  unable  to  deliver  themselves.”  Surely,  this  is 
extremely  magnanimous. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


65 


In  the  “  Practical  Sermons  ”  of  Dr.  Barnes  we  find 
the  following:  “  It  is  not  my  purpose  in  this  discourse 
— though  my  text  (Rev.  xxii.  17)  might  seem  to  invite 
it— to  dwell  on  the  fact  that  the  gospel  is  offered  to  all 
men  ;  that  the  Redeemer  died  for  all ;  that  the  eternal 
Father  is  willing  to  save  all  ;  or  that  ample  provision 
is  made  for  all  who  will  come.  On  these  points,  it  is 
sufficient  for  my  present  purpose  to  say,  that  my  text 
declares  that  ‘  whosoever  will  may  take  the  water  of 
life  freely.’  ”  7  But  of  all  Calvinists,  Dr.  Chalmers  is, 
perhaps,  the  most  enthusiastic  advocate  of  the  freeness 
of  the  gospel.  The  thought  is  so  fresh  and  forcible 
that  I  can  not  forbear  quoting  at  some  length:  “  I 
can  not  but  think  that  the  doctrine  of  Particular 
Redemption  has  been  expounded  by  many  of  its 
defenders  in  such  a  way  as  to  give  an  unfortunate 
aspect  to  the  Christian  dispensation.  As  often  treated, 
we  hold  it  to  be  a  most  unpractical  and  useless  theory, 
and  not  easy  to  be  vindicated,  without  the  infliction  of 
an  unnatural  violence  on  many  passages  of  Scripture. 

.  .  .  .  But  far  its  worst  effect  is,  that  it  acts  as  a  drag 
and  a  deduction  from  the  freeness  of  the  gospel.  Its 
ministers  are  made  to  feel  the  chilling  influence  of  a 
limitation  upon  their  warrant.  If  Christ  died  only  for 
the  elect,  and  not  for  all,  they  are  puzzled  to  under¬ 
stand  how  they  should  proceed  with  the  calls  and 
invitations  of  the  gospel.  They  feel  themselves  dis¬ 
abled  from  addressing  them  to  all  ;  and  this,  in  their 
ignorance  of  the  elect  and  the  reprobate  individually, 
seems  tantamount  to  their  being  disabled  from  address¬ 
ing  them  to  any . There  must  be  a  sad  misun¬ 

derstanding  somewhere.  The  commission  put  into 


1  P.  8. 


66  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

our  hands  is  to  go  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creat¬ 
ure  under  heaven  ;  and  the  announcement  sounded 
forth  on  the  world  from  heaven’s  vault  was,  peace  on 
earth,  good-will  to  men.  There  is  no  freezing  limita¬ 
tion  here,  but  a  largeness  and  munificence  of  mercy 
boundless  as  space,  free  and  open  as  the  expanse  of  the 
firmament.  We  hope,  therefore,  the  gospel,  the  real 
gospel,  is  as  unlike  the  views  of  some  of  its  interpre¬ 
ters,  as  creation  in  all  its  boundlessness  and  beauty  is 
unlike  to  the  paltry  scheme  of  some  wretched  scholas¬ 
tic  in  the  Middle  Ages . In  the  gospel,  the  flag 

of  invitation  waves  in  sight  of  the  whole  species.  It  is 
not  inscribed  there,  ‘  Whosoever  of  the  elect  will  ’ ;  but 
‘  Whosoever  will,  let  him  come  and  drink  of  the  waters 
of  life  freely.’  Neither  do  we  read,  ‘  Look  unto  me,  ye 
specified  and  selected  few  ’ ;  but  ‘  Look  unto  me,  all  ye 
ends  of  the  earth,  and  be  saved.’  It  is  not  in  the 
capacity  of  an  elect  sinner,  but  in  the  capacity  of  a 
sinner,  that  he  who  is  eventually  saved  entertains  the 
overtures  of  reconciliation.  These  overtures  are  not 
made  to  him  as  one  of  the  children  of  election  ;  they 
are  made  to  him  as  one  of  the  children  of  humanity. 
It  is  on  the  stepping-stone  of  a  universal  offer  that 
each  man  reaches  and  realizes  his  own  particular  sal¬ 
vation . The  advocates  of  universal  redemption 

are  quite  at  one  with  ourselves  as  to  the  reception 
which  the  universal  offer  should  meet  with  from  all 
men.  It  should  meet  with  universal  acceptance,  and 
should  be  pressed,  too,  on  universal  acceptance.”  8 
Professor  Tyndall  has  confessed  to  the  world  that 
his  religious  doubts  were  strongest  in  moments  of 
intellectual  despondency  ;  that  his  faith  in  God’s  ex- 


8  “Theology.”  Vol.  II.,  pp.  418,  419,  421. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


67 


istence  grew  firmer  in  proportion  as  he  came  into  the 
clear  sunlight  of  mental  conviction.  Possibly  the 
experience  of  the  scientist  will  explain  the  position  of 
the  theologians  whose  views  we  have  been  considering. 
Certain  it  is,  these  writers  believe  in  and  contend  for  a 
free  gospel— an  unlimited  salvation — a  redemption 
from  sin,  which  every  son  of  Adam  ought  to  accept. 
They  establish  the  fact  beyond  all  controversy  that 
God  does  invite,  nay,  urge  every  sinful  soul  to  accept 
the  gift  of  salvation. 


SECTION  III. 

Are  the  Gospel  bivitations  Sincere  ? 

I  much  prefer  to  assume,  and  not  to  discuss  this 
question.  The  very  thought  shocks  our  moral  senti¬ 
ments.  If  long  entertained  it  not  only  impairs  the 
authority  of  the  Scriptures,  but  attacks  and  gradually 
undermines  the  very  citadel  of  personal  religion — faith 
in  the  essential  righteousness  of  God.  But  there  is 
no  alternative.  The  issue  is  forced  upon  the  student  of 
theology  by  the  position  of  the  Calvinists.  As  it  has 
been  shown  (see  Chapters  in.  and  iv.  of  Part  I  ) 
one  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Calvinism  is  the 
absolute  omnipotence  of  God.  In  this  respect  all  con¬ 
sistent  Calvinists  must  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  their 
great  leader  ;  as  a  recent  writer  has  expressed  it,  “As 
we  read  the  Institutes  of  Calvin,  we  see  that  the 
corner-stone  of  the  whole  structure  is  his  doctrine  of 
the  Sovereignty  of  God.”  9  Hence,  the  logical  con¬ 
sistency  of  their  position  that  if  God  were  so  disposed 
he  could  save  every  soul  in  the  world. 


9  Rev.  James  B.  Gregg.  “  New  Englander,”  1880,  p.  454. 


68 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


All  modern  Calvinists  agree  in  declaring  the  uni¬ 
versality  of  the  gospel  invitations.  God  can,  but  does 
not  save  all  whom  He  invites.  Consequently  arises 
the  difficulty  concerning  which  Dr.  Chalmers  says 
“  there  must  be  a  sad  misunderstanding  somewhere,” 
while  Dr.  Dick  declares  that  the  Calvinist,  who  is 
determined  to  see  “no  difficulty  here,  has  not,  as  he 
probably  imagines,  more  understanding  than  other 
men,  but  less.”  “The  many  declarations  in  which 
God  exhorts  man  to  keep  his  commandments,  appear 
to  him  ironical,  as  if  a  father  were  to  say  to  his  child, 

‘  Come,’  while  he  knows  that  he  can  not  come!  ”  1  Of 
those  to  whom  God  does  not  give  efficacious  grace, 
Calvin  says,  “  He  directs  his  voice  to  them,  but  it  is 
that  they  may  become  more  deaf ;  he  kindles  a  light, 
but  it  is  that  they  may  be  made  blind  ;  he  publishes  his 
doctrine,  but  it  is  that  they  may  be  more  besotted  ;  he 
applies  a  remedy,  but  it  is  that  they  may  not  be 
healed.”  2 

Rev.  John  Sladen  informs  his  hearers,  “All  that 
God  designed  to  save  he  saves  ;  but  he  actually  saves 
some  only,  therefore,  he  designed  to  save  only  some 
of  fallen  Adam’s  children,  for,  if  we  consider  God  as 
infinite  in  wisdom,  and  of  almighty  power,  there  can 
not  be  a  more  rational  way  of  arguing  than  from  his 
acts  to  his  designs.”3  This  is  similar  to  Symimgton’s 
argument,  who  says  in  behalf  of  a  limited  atonement, 
“  The  event  is  the  best  interpreter  of  the  divine  inten¬ 
tion.”  4  Dr.  Nehemiah  Adams  says,  “  Not  one  more, 


1  Said  of  Luther.  Hagenbach’s  “Hist,  of  Doc.,”  Vol.  II.,  p.  259. 

2  “  Institutes.”  B.  III.,  Chap.  XXIV.,  Sec.  13 

3  “A  Defence  of  Gospel  Doc.,”  p.  78 

4  As  quoted  in  Bledsoe’s  “Theodicy,”  p.  235 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


69 


not  one  less  will  be  saved  than  God  purposed.”  5 
“  God  never  designed  to  save  every  individual  ;  since, 
if  he  had,  every  individual  would  and  must  be  saved  ; 
for  his  counsel  shall  stand  and  he  will  do  all  his  pleas¬ 
ure.”  f> 

It  is  now  evident  that  if  Calvinists  have  correctly 
interpreted  the  Scriptures,  the  universal  invitations 
which  constantly  meet  the  e)^e  of  sinners,  such  as, 
“Ho,  everyone  that  thirsteth,”  “  Come  unto  me  all 
ye  that  labor  ;  ”  “  The  spirit  and  the  bride  say,  Come  ; 
And  let  him  that  heareth  say,  Come.  And  let  him 
that  is  athirst,  Come,  And  whosoever  will,  let  him 
take  the  water  of  life  freely,”  do  not  and  can  not  mean 
what  the  plain,  ordinary  readers  in  all  ages  have 
understood  by  them. 

With  Justin  Martyr,  Ambrose  and  Chrysostom  of 
the  early  Church,  and  with  many  thousands  of  modern 
Christians,  I  had  ignorantly  thought  that  the  uni¬ 
versal  invitations  to  the  gospel  feast  meant  what  they 
said — expressed  the  real  sentiments  and  sincere  desires 
of  God.  But  such  is  not  the  case — if  Calvinism  be 
correct — for  while  the  everlasting  Father  does  invite  all 
through  his  revealed  will,  his  secret  will — his  real 
desire  is  that  only  a  certain  number  shall  accept  his 
overtures  of  mercy.  Thus  speaks  Dr.  Lyman  Atwater, 
who  says,  “  It  results  from  the  universality  of  God’s 
decrees,  as  now  set  forth,  that  they  who  accept  it, 
must  also  accept  the  distinction  between  the  decretive 
and  the  preceptive  will  of  God,  i.  e.,  inasmuch  as  many 
things  occur  contrary  to  his  commands,  while  yet  he 
foreordains  all  things,  it  must  be  that  in  these  cases 


5  “Evenings  with  the  Doctrines,”  p.  257 

6  Toplady  “Works,”  p.  692. 


70  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

he  proposes  one  thing  and  commands  another.  This 
can  not  be  evaded  by  any  who  admit  the  universality 
of  his  decrees  or  purposes.”  7  Commenting  on  Rom. 
ix.  19,  Dr.  K.  D.  Griffin  says,  “His  decretive  will  in 
distinction  from  his  preceptive — a  distinction  which 
the  apostle  here  brings  into  view  and  does  not  deny, 
but  in  the  context  clearly  affirms.”  8 

Concerning  the  secret  will  of  God,  Dr.  Emmons 
declares  that  it  “solely  respects  the  taking  place  of 
those  things  which  he  determined  from  eternity  should 
take  place,  without  any  regard  to  the  nature  of  them, 
whether  morally  good  or  morally  evil.  It  was  his 
secret  will  that  not  only  holiness  and  happiness,  but 
that  sin  and  misery  also  should  take  place  among 
his  intelligent  creatures.  It  is  his  secret  will  that  all 
the  elect  shall  repent  and  believe,  and  that  all  the 
non-elect  shall  live  and  die  in  impenitence  and  un¬ 
belief  :  though  he  loves  faith  and  repentance  and  hates 
impenitence  and  unbelief.”  9 

In  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  of  1856  there  is  a  Review 
of  Toplady’s  Theology  by  Prof.  Geo.  N.  Boardman, 
D.  D.  Wesley’s  great  opponent  says,  “Although  the 
will  of  God,  considered  in  itself,  is  simply  one  and  the 
same  ;  yet  in  condescension  to  the  present  capacities 
of  men,  the  Divine  Will  is  very  properly  distinguished 
into  secret  and  revealed.  Thus  it  was  his  revealed 
will  that  Pharaoh  should  let  the  Israelites  go  :  that 

7  “  Bib.  Sacra,"  Vol.  XXI.,  p.  82.  The  invasion  has  been  attempted  by 
one  of  Dr.  Atwater’s  friends.  With  what  success  will  appear  further  on. 
Doubtless,  the  logic  of  Dr.  Atwater  is  correct  in  maintaining  that  he  who 
accepts  liis  premises  ought  to  grant  his  conclusion.  Strange  that  he  does 
not  question  and  deny  the  soundness  of  his  premises. 

8  “  Divine  Efficiency,”  p.  147. 

9  “  Works.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  346. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  7 1 

Abraham  should  sacrifice  his  son  ;  that  Peter  should  not 
deny  Christ ;  but  as  was  proved  by  the  event,  it  was 
his  secret  will  that  Pharaoh  should  not  let  Israel  go  ; 
that  Abraham  should  not  sacrifice  Isaac,  and  that 
Peter  should  deny  his  Lord.”  To  this  Professor 
Boardman  adds,  as  an  explanation,  “It  must  not  be 
inferred  from  this  that  God’s  will  is  ever  contrary 
to  itself.  The  secret  will  of  God  is  in  reality  his  will  : 
while  that  which  is  revealed  has  reference  to  the 
various  circumstances  of  men.  The  hidden  will  is 
peremptory  and  absolute.”  1  Here  we  have  new 
light.  It  must  be  confessed  the  rays  therefrom  are 
cold,  freezing  cold,  but  it  can  not  be  denied  that  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  has  burst  upon  and  overwhelmed 
us. 

As  the  sincerity  of  Almighty  Love  was  eluding  us, 
as  it  was  getting  every  moment  less  and  less  real,  I 
had  hoped — doubtless,  with  the  reader,  that  our  un¬ 
erring  interpreters  of  the  Bible  would  leave  untouched, 
the  only  remaining  comfort  of  the  non-elect,  viz.:  an 
eternal  antagonism  between  the  two  Divine  wills. 
But  no  ;  even  this  small  hope  vanishes  as  the  truth  is 
forced  upon  me  that  the  universal  invitations  of  the 
gospel  are  no  more  to  be  relied  upon  than  are  the 
dreams  of  a  madman  ;  for  as  these  theologians  tell  us, 
they  are  in  no  sense  the  real  expression  of  the  Divine 
will.  These  invitations  are  made  out  of  gracious  con¬ 
descension  to  our  finite  capacities  :  they  convey  no 
truth,  they  express  no  reality,  for  in  all  cases  “the 
secret  will  of  God,  is  in  reality,  his  will.” 

The  reasoning  of  this  school  of  Calvinists  when 
explaining  the  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement,  irre- 


1  Pages,  812,  813. 


72  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

sistibly  leads  to  a  flat  denial  of  the  Divine  sincerity. 
To  them  it  may  appear  reasonable  and  satisfactory  ; 
but  to  other  Calvinists  it  does  not.  Thus  President 
R.  L.  Dabney,  while  claiming  “that  there  is  a  just 
distinction  between  God’s  decretive  and  preceptive 
will,”  says  “but  let  the  question  be  stated  thus: 
Do  all  the  solemn  and  tender  entreaties  of  God  to 
sinners  express  no  more,  as  to  the  non-elect,  than  a 
purpose  in  God,  uncompassionate  and  merely  rectoral, 
to  acquit  himself  of  his  legislative  function  towards 
them  ?  To  speak  after  the  manner  of  men,  have  all 
these  apparently  touching  appeals  after  all  no  heart 
in  them  ?  We  can  not  but  deem  it  an  unfortunate  logic 
which  constrains  a  man  to  take  this  view  of  them. 
How  much  more  simple  and  satisfactory  to  take  them 
for  just  what  they  express?  evidences  of  a  true  com¬ 
passion,  which  yet  is  restrained,  in  the  case  of  the 
unknown  class,  the  non-elect,  by  consistent  and  holy 
reasons,  from  taking  the  form  of  a  volition  to  regen¬ 
erate.”  The  average  reader  will  agree  with  Dr. 
Dabney  that  there  must  be  some  heart  in  the  gospel 
invitations  ;  that  the  Divine  compassion  for  lost  souls 
which  is  constantly  breaking  forth  in  such  expressions 
as  “  Cast  away  from  you  all  your  transgressions 
whereby  ye  have  transgressed  ;  and  make  you  a  new 
heart  and  a  new  spirit ;  for  why  will  ye  die,  O  house 
of  Israel?”  must  be  rooted  in  everlasting  sincerity. 
But  let  us  see  if  Dr.  Dabney  has,  in  any  essential 
degree,  abetter  solution.  After  declaring  that  “the 
plain  Christian  mind  will  ever  stumble  on  this  fatal 
question,  How  can  a  truthful  and  consistent  God 
have  two  opposite  wills  about  the  same  object?”  he 
adds.  “It  is  far  more  Scriptural,  and,  as  we  trust,  has 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


73 


been  shown,  far  more  logical  to  say,  that  an  immutable 
and  sovereign  God  never  had  but  one  will  (one  pur¬ 
pose,  or  volition),  as  to  this  lost  man  ;  as  a  faithful 
God  would  never  publish  any  other  volition  than  the 
one  he  entertained,  but  that  it  was  entirely  consistent 
for  God  to  compassionate  where  he  never  purposed 
nor  promised  to  save,  because  this  sincere  compassion 
was  restrained  within  the  limits  God  announced  by  his 
own  wisdom.”2  Certainly  this  is  a  remarkable  solu¬ 
tion.  Dr.  Dabney  believes  in,  and  contends  for,  God’s 
real  compassion  for  the  non-elect ;  yet  he  gravely  tells 
us  that  this  yearning  of  the  Father  for  the  return  of 
his  lost  children  does  not  lead  to  salvation  because 
“  He  never  purposed  nor  promised  to  save.”  If  this 
signifies  anything,  it  must  mean  that  the  universal 
invitations  of  the  gospel  were  never  intended  by  God  as 
promises  to  the  non-elect. 

True,  the  same  language  between  man  and  man 
would  always  be  understood  as  a  promise  ;  is  so  under¬ 
stood  by  every  ordinary  reader  of  the  Bible  through¬ 
out  Christendom  :  but  nevertheless  it  is  all  a  mistake. 
God  has  never  purposed  nor  promised  to  save  the  non¬ 
elect  ;  he  has  simply  announced  to  the  world  that  he 
really  pities,  sincerely  compassionates  them.  Beyond 
all  controversy  Dr.  Dabney  and  Dr.  Toplady  are  in 
the  same  dilemma.  They  simply  differ  in  the  choice 
of  the  horn  on  which  they  shall  be  impaled.  Dr. 
Toplady  says  God’s  universal  invitations  are  not  real, 
because  they  are  in  no  essential  sense  the  expression 
of  his  will.  Dr.  Dabney  replies,  “  No,  you  are  mis¬ 
taken,  Dr.  Toplady.  Your  logic  is  at  fault ;  these 
invitations  of  God  are  sincere  ;  they  express  his  reai 


2  “  Princeton  Review,”  July,  1878,  p.  59. 


74  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

compassion,  you  err  in  supposing  them  to  be  promises  ; 
that,  they  are  not  and  were  never  intended  to  be. 

One  moment’s  serious  thought  will  explode  these 
sophisms.  The  universal  invitations  of  the  gospel  are 
sincere,  not  only  because  they  express  God’s  real  com¬ 
passion,  but  because  they  are  his  promises  to  be  fulfilled 
the  instant  the  conditions  are  truly  met.  There  is 
not  one  declaration  within  the  pages  of  the  Bible, 
offering  peace  and  salvation  to  the  troubled  soul  that 
is  not  a  promise  to  any  and  every  one  who  reads.  As 
Dr.  Chalmers  has  said  :  “In  no  place  in  the  Bible  is 
pardon  addressed  to  any  man  on  the  footing  that  he  is 
one  of  the  elect ;  but  in  all  places  of  the  Bible  pardon 
is  addressed  to  every  man  on  the  footing  that  he  is  one 
of  the  species.  On  the  former  footing,  there  would  be 
no  warrant  to  any  for  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  for  no 
man  knows  at  the  commencement  of  his  Christianity 
that  he  is  one  of  the  elect.  On  the  latter  footing, 
there  is  a  distinct  warrant  to  all,  if  they  so  choose,  for 
the  faith  of  the  gospel — for  every  man  knows  that  he  is 
one  of  the  human  race.  It  is  most  assuredly  in  his 
latter  capacity  and  not  in  his  former,  that  the  calls  and 
offers  and  entreaties  of  the  gospel  are  brought  to  his 
door.’’3  He  who  was  “  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the 
Life,’’  who  was  a  perfect  scourge  to  all  hypocrites,  and 
who  declared  that  every  idle  word  shall  be  brought  to 
judgment,  meant  exactly,  without  any  qualifications 
or  evasions  whatsoever,  what  his  words  seem  to  mean 
when  he  said  “  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and 
are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest.  Take  my 
yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me  ;  for  I  am  meek  and 
lowly  in  heart;  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your  souls.  ’’ 


3  “Theology,”  Vol.  II.,  p.  422. 


AND  MAN'S  MORAL  NATURE. 


75 


(Matt.  xi.  28,  29).  Anything  short  of  this  is  unmit¬ 
igated  hypocrisy. 


SECTION  IV. 

The  Atonement,  An  Expression  of  God's  Universal 

Love. 

Beyond  all  controversy  the  attributes  and  charac¬ 
ter  of  Deity  should  be  considered  with  veiled  faces 
and  in  the  spirit  of  profound  reverence.  We  can  not 
“find  out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection,”  for  as  the 
heavens  are  higher  than  the  earth,”  so  are  his  ways 
higher  than  our  ways,  and  his  thoughts  than  our 
thoughts.  Hence  as  the  devout  theologian  analyzes 
the  Divine  Attributes  he  has  no  intention  of  unduly 
magnifying  one  above  another.  Like  the  subsistences 
in  the  Godhead,  each  is  perfect  in  its  sphere,  while 
of  necessity  all  are  related  by  a  governing  principle. 
What  this  central  attribute  of  Deity  is,  has  been  va¬ 
riously  defined,  just  as  the  student  of  theology  has 
been  most  influenced  by  natural  or  by  moral  ideas  of 
God’s  government.  As  we  have  seen,  Calvinism  has 
always  taken  the  natural  as  the  central  principle  of 
the  Divine  procedure,  and  consequently  the  omnipo¬ 
tence  of  God  is  the  key  which  unlocks  the  mysteries 
of  Calvinistic  theology.  Hence  this  attribute  has  been 
called  “the  first  article  of  our  Faith,”  while  those 
who  deny  it  are  charged  with  being  “Atheists.” 
Against  this  false  view  of  the  Divine  character  many 
thoughtful  men  have  always  rebelled.  Nor  do  the 
Scriptures  speak  with  any  uncertainty.  So  far  as  any 
one  term  can  express  the  governing  attribute  in  the 
nature  of  God,  it  is  not  power,  nor  wisdom,  but  love. 
“  He  that  loveth  not,  knoweth  not  God  ;  for  God  is 


76  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

love . And  we  have  known  and  believed  the 

love  that  God  hath  to  us.  God  is  love  ;  and  he  that 
dwelleth  in  love  dwelleth  in  God,  and  God  in  him.” 
(i.  Tohn  iv.  8-16.) 

It  will  be  interesting  and  profitable  to  notice  a  few 
of  the  many  comments  on  this  passage.  Says  Alford, 
“Love  is  the  very  essence,  not  merely  an  attribute,  of 
God.  It  is  co-essential  with  Him.”  Cowles  remarks 
“  Inform,  the  statement  seems  abstract,  metaphysical; 
for  observe,  it  is  not  that  God  is  kind,  affectionate, 
evermore  manifesting  his  good  will  ;  but  that  he  is 
love  itself — the  very  impersonation  of  love  ;  all  love, 
and  nothing  else  but  love.  It  is  of  course  compre¬ 
hensive,  all  embracing.  It  means  that  there  can 
never  be  anything  in  him,  nothing  coming  from  him, 
that  is  not  loving — an  outgoing  of  His  love. 

Christlieb  declares,  “.  .  .  .  As  spirituality  is  the 
vital  foundation  of  his  physical  and  intellectual  perfec¬ 
tions,  so  holy  love  is  the  internal  basis  of  all  his  moral 
perfections,  and  a  necessary  deduction  from  the  true  idea 
of  the  absolute.”  4  Delitzsch  says,  “.  .  .  .  When  the 
apostle  says  of  God,  not  that  he  is  the  love,  but  that  he 
is  love,  i.  e.,  that  he  is  love  in  the  deepest  ground  and 
entire  circuit  of  his  nature  living  itself  forth,  we  obtain 
the  disclosure — which  follows,  besides,  from  the  fact, 
that  he  is  light,  absolutely  free  from  darkness  (i.  John 
i.  5) — that  the  will  which  is  the  root  of  his  being  has 
love  as  its  impulse,  and  is  thus  the  will  of  love.”  5 

This  all  controlling  characteristic  of  the  Divine 
Nature  clearly  and  beautifully  explains  the  sacrifice 
of  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  not  only  “  the  Lamb  of  God 


4  “  Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief,”  p.  222. 

5  “  Biblical  Psychology,”  p.  203. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


77 


which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,”  but  he  is 
the  very  Incarnation  of  the  Father’s  love  for  every  one 
whom  he  has  created.  “  For  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlast¬ 
ing  life.”  All  attempts  of  the  Calvinists  to  change 
the  obvious  meaning  of  this  passage  so  as  to  favor 
their  doctrine  of  a  limited  atonement  have  signally 
failed.  The  object  of  God’s  love  was  the  world,  the 
entire  human  race,  and  it  was  the  same  to  all,  not  re¬ 
stricted  to  a  certain  class  otherwise  designated  as  ‘  ‘  the 
elect.”  The  same  doctrine  is  expounded  by  the  Apos¬ 
tle  Paul.  “  For  the  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us  ; 
because  we  thus  judge,  that  if  one  died  for  all,  then 
were  all  dead  :  And  that  he  died  for  all,  that  they 
which  live  should  not  henceforth  live  unto  themselves, 
but  unto  him  which  died  for  them,  and  rose  again.” 
(n.  Cor.  v.  14-15.)  On  this  passage,  Dr.  Barnes 
says,  ‘  ‘  The  phrase  ‘  for  all  ’  evidently  means  for  all 
mankind  ;  for  every  man.  This  is  an  exceedingly  im¬ 
portant  expression  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  the  atone¬ 
ment . It  demonstrates  that  the  atonement  was 

general,  and  had,  in  itself  considered,  no  limitation 
and  no  particular  reference  to  any  one  class  or  condi¬ 
tion  of  men,  and  no  particular  applicability  to  one 
class  more  than  another.”  Speaking  of  the  ministry 
of  reconciliation,  Paul  says  “that  God  was  in  Christ, 
reconciling  the  world  unto  himself,  not  imputing  their 
trespasses  unto  them  :  ”  (verse  19).  Tange  says  the 
‘  ‘  world  ”  “  signifies  the  human  race,  and  as  it  is  here 
without  the  article,  it  means  perhaps  a  ‘  whole  world.  ’  ’  ’ 
“  Who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all,  to  be  testified 
in  due  time;”  (1.  Tim.  ii.  6).  “  For,  therefore,  we 


78  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

both  labor  and  suffer  reproach,  because  we  trust  in 
the  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  specially 
of  those  that  believe”  (iv.  io).  Of  the  former 
passage  Alford  says,  ‘  ‘  This  oneness  of  the  Mediator, 
involving  in  itself  the  universality  of  Redemption, 
was  the  great  subject  of  Christian  testimony.”  “  For 
the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath  ap¬ 
peared  to  all  men  ”  .  (Titus  ii.  n).  “But  we  see 
Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower  than  the  angels, 
for  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and 
honor  ;  that  he  by  the  grace  of  God  should  taste  death 
for  every  man”  (Heb.  ii.  9).  Commenting  on  this 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says,  “  Christ  tasted  death  for  every 
one  of  the  objects  of  redemption  ”  thus  contradicting 
the  plain  sense  of  the  passage  ;  for  allowing  full  scope 
for  all  differences  of  opinion  concerning  the  gender, 
the  “  all  ”  is  incontestably  declared.  The  same  truth 
is  taught  in  Rom.  v.  18:  “Therefore,  as  by  the 
offense  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  con¬ 
demnation  ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  the 
free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life.” 
While  this  passage  gives  no  hope  to  Universalism,  it 
positively  condemns  the  doctrine  of  a  restricted  atone¬ 
ment.  “  And  he  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins  ;  and 
not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world”  ( 1.  John  ii.  2).  “And  as  Moses  lifted  up 
the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of 
man  be  lifted  up  :  That  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life”  (John  iii. 
I4„i5).  The  historic  scene  to  which  the  Master  here 
alludes  is  familiar  to  all.  The  Israelites  were  in  a 
spirit  of  wicked  distrust  and  bitter  murmurings.  As 
a  punishment  the  Ford  sent  fiery  serpents  which  de- 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE}. 


79 


stroyed  many  of  the  people.  The  infliction  had  the 
desired  effect :  the  people  were  humbled  and  sought 
the  intercession  of  Moses.  ‘  ‘  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  Make  thee  a  fiery  serpent  and  set  it  upon  a  pole  ; 
and  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  every  one  that  is  bitten, 
when  he  looketh  upon  it,  shall  live.  And  Moses 
made  a  serpent  of  brass,  and  put  it  upon  a  pole  ;  and 
it  came  to  pass,  that  if  a  serpent  had  bitten  any  man, 
when  he  beheld  the  serpent  of  brass  he  lived.”  Here 
the  intention  and  the  provision  were  as  wide  as  the 
disease.  So,  according  to  Jesus  is  the  divine  remedy. 
Hence,  sorrowing  men  in  all  ages  have  found  comfort 
in  reading  that  wonderful  prophecy — the  fifty-third 
chapter  of  Isaiah.  It  speaks  with  no  uncertainty  of 
the  universal  provisions  of  the  gospel,  declaring  “  All 
we,  like  sheep,  have  gone  astray  ;  we  have  turned 
every  one  to  his  own  way  ;  and  the  Lord  hath  laid  on 
him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.”  According  to  Neander, 
the  Parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son  reveals  the  Father’s 
love  for  the  sinful  and  rebukes  s<  not  merely  the  JewT- 
ish  exclusiveness,  but  all  those  limitations  of  God’s 
purposes  for  the  salvation  of  the  human  race,  whether 
before  or  after  Christ,  which  the  arbitrary  creeds  of 
men  have  attributed  to  the  divine  decrees.  The  par¬ 
able  clearly  implies  that  the  love  of  the  Father  contem¬ 
plates  the  salvation  of  all  his  fallen  children  among 
all  generations  of  men.”  6 

It  will  now  be  in  order  to  notice  one  or  two  objec¬ 
tions  often  urged  against  the  Arminian  view  of  these 
and  other  passages,  (i)  It  may  be  said,  as  President 
Dabney  has  affirmed,  that  these  expressions  of  love 
mean  nothing  more  than  “  a  propension  of  benevolence 


6  “  Life  of  Christ,”  p.  214. 


8o 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


not  matured  into  the  volition  to  redeem,  of  which 
Christ’s  mission  is  a  sincere  manifestation  to  all  sin¬ 
ners.”  Without  anticipating  the  consideration  of  this 
solution  upon  which  Dr.  .Dabney  so  confidently  relies, 

I  may  say,  in  passing,  that  it  radically  fails  to  ac¬ 
count  for  the  plain,  unequivocal  language  of  the  Bible. 
In  all  of  these  passages  there  is  but  one  class  of  men 
considered.  That  class  embraces  all  who  are  lost  in 
sin.  For  them  God  has  an  infinite  love.  Christ 
came  as  the  incarnation  of  that  love  to  die  for  them 
that  they  through  Him  might  be  saved.  The  ex¬ 
pressions  of  God’s  love  have,  or  have  not  a  reference 
to  “the  elect.”  Dr.  Dabney  may  take  his  choice. 
Whatever  is  declared  of  one  is  declared  of  all. 

This  is  substantially  the  same  answer  which  is  to 
be  made  to  the  second  objection,  namely,  “  Christ’s 
death  was  sufficient  for  all,  but  efficacious  only  for  the 
elect.”  Thus  Dr.  N.  L.  Rice  remarks,  “  It  is  objected 
again,  that  according  to  the  Calvinistic  view,  Christ 
made  no  atonement  for  the  non-elect,  and  our  Armin- 
ian  friends  have  urged  against  the  doctrine  all  those 
passages  of  Scripture  which  represent  Christ  as  having 
died  for  all  men.  But  the  word  ‘  for,’  like  all  other 
prepositions,  has  a  number  of  meanings.  What,  then, 
do  they  mean  by  affirming  that  Christ  died  for  all 
men?  Do  they  mean  that  he  made  an  atonement, 
which,  in  consequence  of  his  infinite  dignity,  is  suffi¬ 
cient  for  all  men  ?  If  so,  we  have  no  controversy  with 
them  ;  for  we  hold  that  the  Atonement  is  of  infinite 
value,  and  that  no  one  is  lost  because  its  virtue  is 
exhausted.  Do  they  mean  that  in  making  an  atone¬ 
ment  Christ  designed  to  offer  salvation  indiscriminately 
to  all  men  ?  If  so,  we  agree  with  them.  Our  views  of 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  8 1 

the  gospel  require  us  to  preach  it  ‘  to  every  creature.’ 
Do  they  mean  that  Christ  really  purposed  to  save  all 
men  by  his  death  ?  They  can  not  mean  this  ;  for,  in 
the  first  place,  multitudes  were  forever  lost  before  he 
died,  and  it  will  scarcely  be  pretended  that  he  designed 
to  save  them.  In  the  second  place,  he  certainly  knew 
who  would  believe  and  be  saved  :  for  he  knew  all 
things  ;  and  it  would  be  absurd  to  say  that  he  designed 
to  save  those  he  knew  he  never  would  save.  ”  7  I  have 
purposely  quoted  this  author  at  some  length  that  his 
argument  may  be  fairly  analyzed.  Notice  (a)  Dr. 
Rice  confesses  that  Christ  did  not  really  purpose  to  save 
all  men ;  yet  (£)  Christ  offers  “  salvation  indiscrimin¬ 
ately  to  all  men.”  Query:  Is  Christ  divided  in  that 
he  offers  a  thing  while  at  the  same  time  he  never  really 
purposes  to  give  it  ?  This  must  be,  or  else  Dr.  Rice 
uses  the  word  “  purposed  ”  in  the  double  sense  of  sin¬ 
cere  desire,  or  honest  intention  and  positive  volition. 
The  Arminian  readily  answers  the  question  by  saying 
Christ  really  purposed  to  save  all  who  would  freely 
yield  themselves  to  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
So  far,  the  “  purpose  ”  is  as  wide  as  the  race.  But  if 
the  question  of  divine  knowledge  or  foreknowledge  is 
brought  into  the  problem — which  Dr.  Rice  raises,  and 
by-the-way,  one  can  not  help  wondering  why  a  Calvin¬ 
ist  should  confound  the  divine  purpose,  or  decree  to 
save,  with  the  knowledge  of  who  would  believe, — then 
the  intention  or  purpose  of  Christ  passes  into  the  posi¬ 
tive  volition  to  save  those  only  who  are  foreseen  to 
be  obedient.  If  this  is  what  Dr.  Rice  means  by  say¬ 
ing  Christ  “  certainly  knew  who  would  believe  and  be 
saved  ”  he  has  passed  into  the  domain  of  Arminian 


V  “  God  Sovereign  and  Man  Free,”  p.  1 1 8, 


82  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

theology.  If  not,  then  this  part  of  his  argument  not 
only  amounts  to  nothing,  but  it  makes  Jesus  offer  to  all 
men  that  which  he  never  purposed  to  bestow, — which 
is  usually  designated  as  hypocrisy.  But  (V)  Dr.  Rice 
is  generous  in  saying  the  atonement  “  is  sufficient  for 
all  men.”  Doubtless  it  is  ;  but  of  what  account  in  the 
saving  of  sinners  is  its  mere  sufficiency  unless  applied 
by  the  divine  purpose  ?  Moreover,  this  language  is 
not  biblical.  I  gladly  challenge  any  Calvinist  to  pro¬ 
duce  one  passage  of  God’s  Word  declaring  Christ  did 
not  die  for  all,  or  affirming  that  while  his  death  is  suf¬ 
ficient  for  all  it  is  efficacious  only  for  the  elect.  The 
proposition  is  of  that  scholastic  spirit  which  can 

“  The  hair  divide 

Between  the  west  and  southwest  side,” 

and  would  never  have  been  thought  of  were  it  not  that 
a  pet  theory  demanded  an  additional  prop.  Dr.  Jenkyn 
has  truly  said,  “An  all-sufficiency,  yet  not  intended 
for  all  who  are  invited  to  partake  of  it,  is  such  an  awful 
imposture  that  I  grudge  the  very  ink  that  mentions  it 
in  connection  with  the  Gospel  of  Truth.”  8 

(3)  With  all  Calvinists,  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  argues 
a  limited  atonement  from  the  Express  Declarations  of 
Scripture.  These  are  such  passages  as  “Even  as 
Christ  loved  the  church  and  gave  himself  for  it” 
(Eph.  v.  25).  “As  the  Father  knoweth  me,  even  so 
know  I  the  Father,  and  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the 
sheep”  (John  x.  15).  “  Greater  love  hath  no  man  than 
this,  that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his  friends” 
(John  xv.  13).  The  reader  will  notice  that  these 
expressions  are  of  the  same  general  character  as  Paul’s 


8  “  The  Rxtent  of  the  Atonement,”  p.  104. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


83 


words  to  Timothy — previously  quoted — where  God  is 
declared  to  be  the  Saviour  “of  all  men,  .specially  of 
those  that  believe.”  Of  necessity  there  is  a  more  inti¬ 
mate  and  vital  relation  existing  between  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  followers,  than  there  can  be  between  him  and 
those  who  have  not  exercised  saving  faith.  To  deny 
this  is  to  affirm  the  unreality  of  all  spiritual  distinc¬ 
tions  ;  hence  Paul  appropriately  notices  this  relation  by 
saying  that  while  God  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  yet 
he  is  specially  so  of  those  who  love  him.  As  Alford 
remarks,  “He  is  the  same  Saviour  towards,  and  of 
all  ;  but  these  alone  appropriate  his  salvation.”  Now 
as  Scripture  best  explains  Scripture,  it  is  certainly  fair 
to  say  that  the  passages  adduced  by  Dr.  Hodge  do  not 
mean  anything  essentially  different  from  those  which 
we  have  been  considering.  If  the  clearly  expressed 
parts  of  the  Bible  are  to  have  the  preference,  if  they 
are  to  interpret  the  more  obscure  passages,  then  the 
many  clear  and  unequivocal  affirmations  of  the  uni¬ 
versal  extent  of  the  atonement  are  not  to  be  interpreted 
by  such  tantalizing  words  as  ‘  ‘  the  Atonement  was  suf¬ 
ficient  for  all,  but  efficacious  only  for  the  elect.” 
Moreover,  the  terms  “church,”  “sheep”  and 
“  friends  ”  are  susceptible  of  a  different  meaning  from 
that  conveyed  by  Dr.  Hodge,  namely,  those  foreseen 
to  be  true  believers.  As  thus  considered,  they  do  sus¬ 
tain  a  peculiar  relation  to  the  Saviour — as  Paul  de¬ 
clares,  and  as  already  explained — while  at  the  same 
time  the  truth  for  which  I  am  here  contending  is  fully 
vindicated. 


84  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

SECTION  V. 

The  Salvation  of  All  Men ,  the  Pleasure  a7id  Will  of 

God. 

This  proposition  is  a  logical  deduction  from  the 
universality  of  God’s  love.  But  not  satisfied  with  the 
statement  that  the  Father  of  Mercies  “with  whom 
there  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning’’ 
has  an  infinite  love  for  every  sinful  soul,  the  Bible 
unmistakably  declares  that  the  salvation  of  all  men  is 
according  to  the  pleasure  and  will  of  God.  “Cast 
away  from  you  all  your  transgressions,  whereby  ye 
have  transgressed  ;  and  make  you  a  new  heart  and  a 
new  spirit  ;  for  why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel  ? 
For  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth, 
saith  the  Lord  God  :  wherefore  turn  yourselves,  and 
live  ye’’  (Ezek.  xviii.  31,  32).  “Say  unto  them,  As  I 
live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the 
death  of  the  wicked  ;  but  that  the  wicked  turn  from 
his  way  and  live  :  turn  ye,  turn  ye  from  your  evil 
ways  ;  for  why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  Israel  ?  ’’  (Ezek. 
xxxiii.  11).  “For  he  doth  not  afflict  willingly,  nor 
grieve  the  children  of  men’’  (Lamentations  iii.  33). 
Paul  exhorts  that  “supplications,  prayers,  interces¬ 
sions,  and  givingof  thanks,  be  made  for  all  men,”  giv¬ 
ing  as  a  reason,  “  For  this  is  good  and  acceptable  in 
the  sight  of  God  our  Saviour  ;  who  will  have  all  men 
to  be  saved,  and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth”  (1.  Tim.  ii.  3,  4).  Of  this  passage  Calvin  says, 
“  By  this  he  assuredly  means  nothing  more  than  that 
the  way  of  salvation  was  not  shut  against  any  order  of 
of  men.”  9  If  I  should  say  this  was  far  from  expressing 


9  “  Institutes,”  B.  III.,  ch.  xxiv.,  Sec.  16. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


85 


the  meaning  of  the  passage,  and  that  indicates  a  lament¬ 
able  lack  of  exegetical  fairness  on  the  part  of  the  great 
Reformer,  the  reader  might  possibly  charge  me  with 
being  prejudiced.  Ret  Alford  speak,  who  certainly 
can  not  be  charged  with  Arminian  tendencies.  “  Cal¬ 
vin  most  unworthily  shuffles  out  of  the  decisive  testi¬ 
mony  borne  by  this  passage  to  universal  redemption, 
saying,  ‘  The  Apostle  simply  means,  that  no  people  or 
rank  in  the  world  is  excluded  from  salvation.’  ”  The 
testimony  of  Dr.  Albert  Barnes  is  equally  explicit. 
“  This  verse  (4th)  proves  ( 1 )  that  salvation  is  provided 
for  all :  for  if  God  wished  all  men  to  be  saved,  he 
would  undoubtedly  make  provision  for  their  salvation; 
and  if  he  had  not  made  such  provision,  it  could  not  be 
said  that  he  desired  their  salvation,  since  no  one  can 
doubt  that  he  has  power  to  provide  for  the  salvation 
of  all ;  (2)  that  salvation  should  be  offered  to  all  men; 
for  if  God  desires  it,  it  is  right  for  his  ministers  to 
announce  that  desire,  and  if  he  desires  it,  it  is  not 
proper  for  them  to  announce  anything  contrary  to  this: 
(3)  that  men  are  to  blame  if  they  are  not  saved.  If 
God  did  not  wish  their  salvation,  and  if  he  had  made 
no  provision  for  it,  they  could  not  be  to  blame  if  they 
rejected  the  gospel.  If  God  wishes  it,  and  has  made 
provision  for  it,  and  they  are  not  saved,  the  sin  must 
be  their  own.  ’  ’  This  is  anything  but  sound  Calvinism, 
but  nevertheless  it  rings  with  good  common  sense  and 
is  Scripturally  consistent.  “The  Lord  is  not  slack 
concerning  his  promise,  as  some  men  count  slackness  ; 
but  is  longsuffering  to  usward,  not  willing  that  any 
should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance” 
(11.  Peter  iii.  9). 

A  brief  resutnd  of  the  Bible  argument  on  this 


86  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

subject  may  assist  the  reader  in  determining  the  cor¬ 
rectness  of  the  position  here  maintained.  We  have 
found  (i)  that  all  men  are  invited  to  partake  of  a 
common  salvation,  Calvinists  themselves  being  the 
judges.  (2)  That  these  universal  invitations  are 
uttered  in  all  Godly  sincerity.  (3)  That  they  are 
thus  offered  because  Jesus  Christ  has  made  an  unlim¬ 
ited  atonement,  has  tasted  death  for  every  man.  (4) 
That  this  universal  atonement  is  the  expression  of  the 
sincere  pleasure  and  will  of  God,  who  is  “  not  willing 
that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to 
repentance.” 

This  naturally  leads  us  to  the  consideration  of  the 
question,  What  is  meant  by  the  “will  of  God”  as 
used  in  the  above  passages  ?  In  the  Princeton  Review 
of  July,  1878,  President  Robert  T.  Dabney  considered 
this  question  in  an  article  entitled  “  God’s  Indiscrimi¬ 
nate  Proposals  of  Mercy  as  Related  to  His  Power, 
Wisdom  and  Sincerity.”  It  is  the  best  Calvinistic 
solution  with  which  I  am  acquainted,  and  I  should 
be  constrained  to  accept  it  were  I  not  convinced  that 
its  foundation  principles  are  decidedly  fallacious.  In 
former  pages  I  have  alluded  to,  and  quoted  a  few  .sen¬ 
tences  from  this  article.  I  now  propose  to  examine  it 
more  thoroughly,  and,  so  far  as  possible,  fairly  test  it 
upon  its  own  merits. 

Commencing  his  article,  Dr.  Dabney  says,  “  If  God 
makes  proposals  of  mercy  to  men,  who,  he  foresees, 
will  certainly  reject  them  and  perish,  and  whom  he 
immutably  purposes  to  leave  without  effectual  calling, 
how  can  his  power  and  wisdom  be  cleared,  save  at  the 
expense  of  his  sincerity  ?  or  his  sincerity  at  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  his  wisdom  or  power  ?  This  is  obviously  the 


AND  MAN’S  MORAU  NATURE. 


87 


point  in  the  Reformed  or  Augustinian  theology  most 
difficult  of  adjustment . The  occasion  for  call¬ 

ing  in  question  either  God’s  sincerity,  or  his  wisdom, 
or  power,  upon  the  supposition  of  an  unconditional 
decree,  arises  from  three  classes  of  Scriptures.  One  is 
the  indiscriminate  offer  of  salvation.  Another  is  the 
ascription  of  Christ’s  sacrifice  to  love  for  ‘  the  world  ’ 
as  its  motive,  and  the  calling  of  him  the  ‘  Lamb 
of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world,’ 

‘  giveth  himself  for  the  world,’  etc.  The  third  is 
composed  of  those  which  present  God  as  pitying  all 
sinners,  and  even  those  who  are  never  saved.  Every 
reader’s  mind  will  suggest  texts  of  each  class.  Now, 
it  is  notorious  that  these  furnish  the  armory  from 
which  the  Arminians  equip  their  most  pertinacious 
attacks  on  Calvinism  ;  that  it  is  on  these  texts  the 
Calvinistic  exegesis  labors  most  and  displays  the  most 
uncertainty  ;  and  that  the  usual  Calvinistic  solutions 
of  them  are  scornfully  denounced  as  inadequate  by 
their  opponents.  These  facts,  of  course,  do  not  prove 
that  the  Arminians  are  right ;  but  they  evince  the 
occasion  for,  and  utility  of,  more  satisfactory  discus¬ 
sion.”  1 

Doubtless  the  reader  rejoices  with  me  in  knowing 
that  President  Dabney  is  not  of  that  class  of  Calvinists 
who  think  their  theology  beyond  improvement.  He  has 
clearly  and  satisfactorily  stated  the  problem.  He  has 
confessed  the  seeming  strength  of  the  Arminian  posi¬ 
tion,  and  the  corresponding  difficulties  of  the  “  usual 
Calvinistic  solutions.”  Let  us  now  candidly  examine 
his  argument  in  behalf  of  a  limited  atonement. 


1  Pages  33,  34 


88  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

The  main  point  in  the  solution  is  “  best  indicated 
by  an  analogical  instance.”  Thus  he  says,  “A  hu¬ 
man  ruler  may  have  full  power  and  authority  over  the 
punishment  of  a  culprit,  may  declare  consistently  his 
sincere  compassion  for  him,  and  may  yet  freely  elect 
to  destroy  him.”  Washington  is  selected  as  the  ruler 
and  Major  Andre  as  the  culprit.  Chief-Justice  Mar¬ 
shall  in  his  “  Tife  of  Washington  ”  speaks  of  this 
historic  scene  as  follows  :  “  Perhaps  on  no  occasion  of 
his  life  did  the  commander-in-chief  obey  with  more 
reluctance  the  stern  mandates  of  duty  and  of  policy.” 
Commenting  on  this,  Dr.  Dabney  sa}^s,  “  Washington 
had  plenary  power  to  kill  or  to  save  alive.  His  com¬ 
passion  for  the  criminal  was  real  and  profound.  Yet 
he  signed  his  death-warrant  with  spontaneous  decis¬ 
ion.  The  solution  is  not  the  least  difficult  either  for 
philosphy  or  common  sense.  ’  ’  After  analyzing  human 
volitions,  Dr.  Dabney  returns  to  the  analogy.  He 
says  “  Washinton’s  volition  to  sign  the  death-warrant 
of  Andre  did  not  arise  from  the  fact  that  his  compas¬ 
sion  was  slight  or  feigned,  but  from  the  fact  that  it 
was  rationally  counterpoised  by  a  complex  of  superior 
judgments  and  propensions  of  wisdom,  duty,  patriot¬ 
ism,  and  moral  indignation.”  “Tet  us  suppose  that 
one  of  Andre’s  intercessors  (and  he  had  them — even 
among  the  Americans)  standing  by,  and  hearing  the 
commanding  general  say,  as  he  took  up  the  pen  to 
sign  the  fatal  paper,  ‘  I  do  this  with  the  deepest  reluc¬ 
tance  and  pity  ; 5  should  have  retorted  :  ‘  Since  you 
are  supreme  in  this  matter,  and  have  full  bodily  abil¬ 
ity  to  throw  down  that  pen,  we  shall  know  by  your 
signing  this  warrant  that  your  pity  is  hypocritical !  * 
The  petulance  of  this  charge  would  have  been  equal 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE. 


89 


to  its  folly.  The  pity  was  real  ;  but  was  restrained  by 
superior  elements  of  motive  :  Washington  had  official 
and  bodily  power  to  discharge  the  criminal ;  but  he 
had  not  the  sanction  of  his  own  wisdom  and  justice. 
Thus  his  pity  was  genuine,  and  yet  his  volition  not  to 
indulge  it  free  and  sovereign.”  This  is  followed  by 
an  exposition  of  the  Arminian  and  the  ordinary  Cal- 
vinistic  views,  which  are  to  “be  exploded  by  explain¬ 
ing  the  nature  of  motive  and  free  rational  volition.” 
Here  the  principle  is  applied  to  the  question  at  issue. 
“  The  correct  answer  to  the  Arminian  is  to  show  him 
that  the  existence  of  a  real  and  unfeigned  pity  in  God 
for  ‘  him  that  dieth  ’  does  not  imply  that  God  has  ex¬ 
hausted  his  divine  power  in  vain  to  renew  the  creat¬ 
ure’s  ‘  free  will  ’  in  a  way  consistent  with  its  nature, 
because  the  pity  may  have  been  truly  in  God,  and  yet 
countervailed  by  superior  motives,  so  that  he  did  not 
will  to  exert  his  omnipotence  for  that  sinner’s  re¬ 
newal.” 

‘  ‘  The  other  extreme  receives  the  same  reply  :  the 
absence  of  an  omnipotent  (and  inevitably  efficient) 
volition  to  renew  that  soul  does  not  prove  the  absence 
of  a  true  compassion  in  God  for  him  ;  and  for  the  same 
reason  the  propension  may  have  been  in  God,  but 
restrained  from  rising  into  a  volition  by  superior 
rational  motives.”2  It  is  quite  probable  that  Dr. 
Dabney  has  made  himself  sufficiently  clear  to  the 
reader  ;  but  desiring  to  have  the  principle  thoroughly 
understood  I  will  conclude  this  part  of  the  argument 
in  his  own  words,  namely,  “that  God  does  have  com¬ 
passion  for  the  reprobate,  but  not  express  volition  to 
save  them,  because  his  infinite  wisdom  regulates  his 


2  Pages  36,  37,  38. 


90  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

whole  will  and  guides  and  harmonizes  (not  suppresses) 
all  its  active  principles.”  :5 

To  our  author  “  the  supposed  obstacles  ”  against 
the  adoption  of  this  solution,  ‘‘seem  to  class  them¬ 
selves  under  three  heads.  ( i )  The  difference  between 
a  finite  and  an  infinite  almighty  governor  makes  the 
parallel  worthless.  (2)  Such  a  theory  of  motive  and 
free  agency  may  not  be  applied  to  the  divine  will, 
because  of  God’s  absolute  simplicity  of  being,  and  the 
unity  of  his  attributes  with  his  essence,  the  total  lack 
of  ‘  passive  powers  ’  in  his  glorious  nature,  and  the  unity 
and  eternity  of  his  whole  will  as  to  all  events.  It  is 
feared  that  the  parallel  would  misrepresent  God’s 
activities  of  will  by  a  vicious  anthropomorphism.  (3) 
No  such  balancing  of  subjective  motives  takes  place 
without  inward  strivings,  which  would  be  inconsistent 
with  God’s  immutability  and  blessedness.”  4 

Not  wishing  to  forget  the  real  question  at  issue  I 
shall  rest  the  case  on  the  first  objection  suggested  by 
Dr.  Dabney,  namely,  ‘‘The  difference  between  a  finite 
and  an  infinite  almighty  governor  makes  the  parallel 
worthless.”  Our  author  disposes  of  this  objection  by 
affirming  two  propositions,  namely:  (1)  That  incase 
of  the  lost  there  are  other  reasons  known  only  by  God, 
than  indifference  to  their  fate,  or  a  conscious  inability 
to  save.  (2)  That  the  ultimate  end  of  God’s  govern¬ 
ment  is  his  own  glory. 

To  all  intents  and  purposes  the  first  statement 
belongs  to  the  second.  This  is  conceded  by  Dr. 
Dabney.  Speaking  of  the  ultimate  ends  of  God’s 
government  as  not  including  ‘‘the  happiness  of  the 


3  p.  61. 

4  Page  38. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  91 

largest  possible  number  of  sinners,  but  something  else 
still  more  worthy  of  God  ;  ”  he  says,  “  When  we  have 
admitted  this,  we  have  virtually  admitted  that  God 
may  see,  in  his  own  omniscience,  a  rational  ground 
other  than  inability  for  restraining  his  actual  propen¬ 
sion  of  pity  towards  a  given  sinner.” 

The  argument,  therefore,  is  restricted  to  the  one 
consideration  whether  optimism  is,  or  is  not,  a  correct 
philosophical  solution  of  God’s  government.  Upon 
this  question  there  is  a  great  diversity  of  opinion  even 
among  eminent  Calvinists.  Speaking  of  the  hypothesis 
of  Leibnitz,  Dr.  Chalmers  says:  “If  it  be  not  an 
offensive  weapon  with  which  we  may  beat  down  and 
demolish  the  strongholds  of  the  sceptic,  it  is,  at  least, 
an  armor  of  defense  with  which  we  may  cause  all  his 
shafts  to  fall  harmless  at  our  feet.”  5 

Dr.  Fitch  of  New  Haven  fame  sneaks  much  more 

M. 

positively  saying,  “  Show  us  a  God  who,  able  to  ad¬ 
vance  the  holiness  of  the  universe  forever  and  to  pro¬ 
tect  it  from  all  the  inroads  of  sin,  does  nevertheless, 
in  the  choice  of  his  heart  respecting  a  whole  universe, 
actually  reject  such  protection,  and  prefer  to  gratify 
his  subjects  with  a  mere  exhibition  at  the  expense  of 
the  sin  and  misery  of  one  or  many  of  his  subjects  ;  and 
we  shall  always  see  him  purposely  leading  off  the  holy 
into  sin  and  preferring  their  rebellion  to  obedience.”  c 
Beyond  all  question  this  is  a  radical  departure  from 
Old  School  theology.  It  is  in  the  right  direction  ;  for 
whether  we  accept  or  reject  the  philosophical  termin¬ 
ology  of  optimism  the  substantial  truth  of  the  doctrine 
is  rapidly  gaining  acceptance.  As  it  is  a  question 


5  As  quoted  by  Bledsoe.  “  Theodicy,”  p.  185. 
As  quoted  in  Griffin’s  Divine  Efficiency,  p.  31. 


92  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

upon  which  even  Calvinists  do  not  agree,  and  as  it 
involves  a  critical  study  of  the  Intuitions,  I  shall 
dismiss  it  by  affirming  that  which  I  regard  as  a  moral 
axiom,  namely,  God’s  glory  can  never  ignore  the 
rights  of  his  creatures. 

Inasmuch  as  the  above  objection  is  the  only  one 
noticed  by  Dr.  Dabney  as  vitiating  his  analogy,  I  sup¬ 
pose  it  never  occurred  to  him  that  there  were  other 
objections  far  more  serious.  They  will  now  be  con¬ 
sidered.  The  analogy  is  fallacious  because  it  offers  no 
just  comparison  between  Washington  and  the  spy  on 
one  hand,  and  God  and  the  non-elect  on  the  other. 
Of  course  I  do  not  claim  that  the  analogy  must  be 
perfect  in  all  respects.  By  no  means.  Allowing  for 
all  reasonable  divergencies,  I  yet  claim  that  the  anal¬ 
ogy  is  radically  defective,  because  (i)  The  language 
of  Washington  is  essentially  different  from  that  used 
by  the  Tord  God.  I  agree  with  Dr.  Dabney  that 
Washington’s  pity  for  Andre  was  sincere  ;  but  observe, 
the  commanding- general  never  conveyed,  by  word  or 
hint,  to  any  one  the  idea  that  he  could  and  would  save 
the  unfortunate  officer.  On  the  contrary,  he  made  the 
one  impression  on  Andre’s  friends  that  the  spy  must 
die.  Had  he  told  the  officer  or  his  friends  that  he 
should  be  saved,  had  he  made  the  impression  over  and 
over  again  that  the  spy  could  be  saved,  while,  at  the 
same  time,  knowing  that  it  was  not  true,  then  it  would 
have  been  in  order  for  Dr.  Dabney  to  have  spoken  of 
Washington’s  supposed  ^sincerity.  But  while  the 
commander-in-chief  did  not  thus  speak,  God  has  so 
declared  to  the  world.  He  has  not  only  expressed 
sympathy  and  pity  for  the  non-elect,  but  he  has  in¬ 
vited  them  to  the  same  salvation  which  is  given  to  the 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  93 

•% 

elect.  He  urges  them  to  accept,  tells  them  that  Jesus 
died  that  they  might  live,  makes  the  impression  upon 
all  of  them  that  he  is  waiting  for  them  to  come  that 
he  may  bestow  the  gift  of  eternal  life  upon  them, 
while  at  the  same  time,  according  to  Dr.  Dabney,  God 
has  never  “  purposed  ”  any  such  thing.  If  this  would 
not  be  insincerity,  then  I  confess  I  do  not  know  what 
it  could  be.  Nor  do  I  see  how  the  so-called  ‘  ‘  solution  ’  ’ 
adds  one  ray  of  light.  Nay,  it  is  like  the  theology  of 
Job’s  friends  which  “  darkeneth  counsel  by  words 
without  knowledge  ”  in  that  it  creates  a  new  difficulty 
in  trying  to  solve  an  old  one.  The  sincerity  of  God’s 
pity  is  saved  at  the  expense  of  his  sincerity  in  offer¬ 
ing  salvation  to  all.  But  possibly  the  reader  may  say 
that  I  have  misunderstood  Dr.  Dabney  in  supposing 
him  to  teach  that  God  does  promise  salvation  to  all : 
I  reply,  if  this  be  so,  then  so  much  the  worse  for  the 
theory.  Beyond  all  controversy  God  offers  salvation 
to  all.  This,  as  we  have  seen  in  a  previous  section,  is 
conceded  by  nearly  all  Calvinists.  If  this  truth  is 
denied  by  Dr.  Dabney,  then  a  “  Thus  saith  the  Lord  ” 
will  be  sufficient  to  silence  him.  But  he  does  not 
deny  it  :  on  the  contrary  he  repeatedly  asserts  it.  In 
the  first  place,  the  very  title  of  the  article  proves  it — 
“  God’s  indiscriminate  proposals  of  mercy.”  Again, 
he  says,  “  Let  us  now  represent  to  ourselves  the  large 
number  of  texts  in  which  God  entreats  sinners  to  turn 
from  the  ways  of  destruction.  They  are  addressed  by 
him  to  all  men,  without  distinction  of  elect  and  non¬ 
elect.  When,  for  instance,  the  Redeemer  commands 
us  to  ‘  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature  ’  it  is  im¬ 
possible  by  any  exegetical  pressure  to  make  the  words 
mean  ‘  every  elect  creature  ’  because  he  adds  in  the 


94  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

"  * 

next  verse  (Mark  xvi.  16),  ‘  He  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned.’  This  possible  subject  is  among  the 
‘  every  creature  ’  body  to  whom  the  overtures  of  mercy 
are  to  be  made.  But  no  ‘  elect  creature  ’  can  be 
damned.  Now,  no  straightforward  mind  can  ever  be 
satisfied  that  the  utterance  of  entreaties  to  shun  de¬ 
struction  are  not  the  expression  of  compassion,  if  they 
come  from  a  sincere  person.  The  explanations  of  the 
gospel  calls  to  the  non-elect  which  do  not  candidly 
recognize  this  truth,  must  ever  carry  a  fatal  weight 
with  the  great  body  of  Christians.”  7 

Doubtless  this  confession  is  sufficient.  God  does 
make  “  indiscriminate  proposals  of  mercy  ”  :  he  does 
offer  Jesus  Christ  as  a  Redeemer  to  every  creature  : 
he  does  entreat  every  creature  ‘  ‘  to  shun  destruction  ’  ’  ; 
he  does  make  the  impression  upon  every  creature  that 
he  may  be  saved  :  and  yet,  this  is  all  one  grand  mis¬ 
take,  a  stupendous  delusion,  for  he  has  “never pur¬ 
posed  nor  promised  to  save  ”  all.  I  do  not  know  how 
Dr.  Dabney  would  define  a  “promise,”  but  it  seems 
to  me  his  solution  involves  a  serious  self-contradiction. 

(2)  Equally  fallacious  is  the  analogy  between 
Andre  and  the  non-elect.  The  spy  is  justly  called  a 
“culprit,”  a  “  criminal  ”  ;  of  course  the  11011-elect  are 
not  only  assumed  to  be  such,  but  are  declared  to  be 
worthy  of  eternal  condemnation.  If  this  were  true,  if 
the  decree  of  passing  by  the  11011-elect  is  conditioned 
on  the  divine  foreknowledge  of  their  character,  then 
so  far  Dr.  Dabney  would  remain  untouched  by  this 
argument.  All  Calvinists  are  supralapsarians  or  sub- 
lapsarians.  In  a  subsequent  chapter  more  than  a  pass¬ 
ing  thought  will  be  given  to  these  terms.  At  present 


’  p.  58. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAE  NATURE. 


95 


let  it  suffice  to  say  the  supralapsarians  affirm  that  before 
creation,  and  hence  before  the  existence  of  any  human 
moral  character,  God  determined  to  save  some  and  to 
pass  others  by.  The  sublapsarians  declare  this  doctrine 
harsh  and  unreasonable,  and  maintain  that  God’s  decree 
to  save  or  not  to  save  presupposes  the  race  as  fallen  ; 
and  therefore  as  deserving  of  condemnation.  Concern¬ 
ing  this  Dr.  Dabney  says,  supralapsarians  retort  that 
this  scheme  makes  God’s  decree  as  truly  conditioned 
on  the  creature’s  action  as  the  Arminian,  though  on  a 
different  condition.  So  the  debate  proceeds.”  8 

Now  it  is  evident  that  if  Dr.  Dabney  had  claimed 
to  be  a  Sublapsarian  Calvinist,  so  far  my  second  argu¬ 
ment  would  not  be  valid.  But  he  makes  no  such 
claim.  On  the  contrary,  he  thinks  the  distinction  is 
useless  and  should  never  have  been  made. 

‘  ‘  But  he  who  apprehends  the  action  of  the  infinite 
mind  reasonably  and  Scripturally  at  once,  sees  that, 
while  the  sublapsarian  is  right  in  his  spirit  and  aim, 
both  parties  are  wrong  in  their  method,  and  the  issue 

is  one  which  should  never  have  been  raised . 

One  result  decreed  is  to  depend  on  another  result 
decreed.  But  as  the  decree  is  God’s  consciousness,  all 
is  equally  primary.  Thus  there  will  be  neither  supra- 
nor  infra- lapsarian,  and  no  room  for  their  debate.”9 
Consequently  I  am  strictly  within  the  bounds  of  Chris¬ 
tian  fairness  when  I  say  that  the  analogy  of  Dr.  Dab¬ 
ney  is  radically  wrong  in  assuming  the  criminal  state 
of  the  non-elect.  Andre  was  a  spy  :  as  such  he  was 
extremely  dangerous  to  the  American  cause.  As  a 
patriot,  Washington  was  bound,  by  every  sacred  im- 


8  P.  47- 

9  P.  47. 


g6  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

pulse,  by  the  dictates  of  sober  judgment,  to  sign  the 
death-warrant.  But  no  such  language  can  be  used  in 
reference  to  the  non-elect.  As  yet  they  have  no  exist¬ 
ence  :  hence  they  have  no  moral  character.  Conse¬ 
quently  where  is  the  reason,  where  is  the  sense  of 
justice  which  must  be  satisfied  by  the  eternally  decreed 
rejection  of  the  non-elect  ?  Truly  we  search  in  vain 
for  it,  as  it  nowhere  exists  except  in  the  Calvinistic 
dogma  that  God’s  glory  demands  the  eternal  condem¬ 
nation  of  the  non-elect. 

This  brings  us  to  the  consideration  of  the  third 
objection  against  Dr.  Dabney’s  argument :  namely 
(3)  It  is  grounded  on  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  Fore¬ 
knowledge.  Of  course  this  is  a  serious  charge  to  bring 
against  a  Calvinistic  writer.  Nor  do  I  suppose  for  a 
moment  that  Dr.  Dabney  will  admit  its  correctness, 
but  I  doubt  not  the  reader  will  be  able  to  judge  of  the 
merits  of  the  case,  and  to  him,  therefore,  I  leave  the 
issue.  In  different  parts  of  the  article  we  are  told 
“  that  God’s  election  to  life  is  unconditioned,”  “  that 
God’s  selection  of  Jacob  was  not  conditioned  on  his 
foreseen  penitence  or  faith.”  1 

Rejecting  divine  foresight  as  the  condition  of  elec¬ 
tion,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  Dr.  Dabney  also 
rejects  it  as  the  condition  why  some  men  are  not 
elected:  because  (a)  This,  as  we  have  seen,  (see  Chap¬ 
ter  11.  of  Part  I.)  is  consistent  Calvinism.  Calvin  says, 
“  No  one  can  deny  but  God  foreknew  Adam’s  fall,  and 
foreknew  it  because  he  had  ordained  it  by  his  own 
decree.”  Equally  explicit  is  the  Westminster  Confes¬ 
sion  of  Faith.  “  Although  God  knows  whatsoever 
may  or  can  come  to  pass,  upon  all  supposed  condi- 


1  Pages  50,  51. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURK. 


97 


tions  ;  yet  hath  he  not  decreed  anything  because  he 
foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as  that  which  would  come  to 
pass,  upon  such  conditions.”  IyUther  taught  “All 
things  whatever,  arise  from,  and  depend  upon  the 
divine  appointment ;  whereby  it  was  preordained  who 
should  receive  the  word  of  life,  and  who  should  dis¬ 
believe  it ;  who  should  be  delivered  from  their  sins, 
and  who  should  be  hardened  in  them  :  who  should  be 
justified  and  who  condemned.”  Much  more  might 
be  said,  but  doubtless  I  have  quoted  enough  to  show 
that  Calvinism  has  always  denied  that  the  decree  to 
pass  by  the  non-elect  was  conditioned  on  man’s  fore¬ 
seen  rejection.  (£)  Dr.  Dabney  tells  us  that  to  the 
supralapsarians  the  order  of  the  decrees  adopted  by  the 
sublapsarians  is  “as  truly  conditioned  on  the  creat¬ 
ure’s  action  as  the  Arminian,  though  on  a  different 
condition.”  This  recognizes  the  essentially  Arminian 
tendency  of  making  some  condition  the  basis  of  the 
decrees,  (c)  Dr.  Dabney  declares  that  the  terms 
‘ ‘  supralapsarian ’ ’  and  ‘ ‘ sublapsarian ’’—the  only  place 
where  there  is  any  possible  reason  for  mentioning  the 
decrees  in  connection  with  foresight — are  wrong,  and 
the  issue  “should  never  have  been  raised.”  (d) 
Moreover,  the  decrees  are  one.  ‘  ‘  The  decree  which 
determines  so  vast  a  multitude  of  parts  is  itself  a  unit. 
The  whole  all-comprehending  thought  is  one,  co-eta- 
neous  intuition,  the  whole  decree  one  act  of  the  will.” 
This  clearly  shows  that  if  it  is  wrong  to  say  that  elec¬ 
tion  is  based  on  divine  foresight,  it  is  equally  wrong 
to  say  it  of  reprobation.  Hence,  I  ask  in  all  serious¬ 
ness,  What  right  has  Dr.  Dabney  to  speak  so  often  and 
fluently  of  the  divine  foresight  ?  He  does  this  repeat¬ 
edly.  The  first  sentence  in  his  article  begins  with  the 


98  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

assumption,  ‘  ‘  If  God  makes  proposals  of  mercy  to 
men,  who  he  foresees  will  certainly  reject  them,  and 
perish.  ”  Speaking  of  Jacob’s  sins  and  of  his  election, 
he  asks  “  Did  not  God  feel,  notwithstanding  this  prop¬ 
erly  overruling  rational  motive,  the  abhorrence  for 
Jacob’s  foreseen  original  sin  and  actual  meanness, 
suitable  for  an  infinitely  holy  nature  to  feel,  and  nat¬ 
urally  tending,  had  it  not  been  counterpoised,  to 
Jacob’s  righteous  rejection  ?  Again,  “  God  doubtless 
felt  then  a  similar  moral  reprehension  for  Jacob’s  fore¬ 
seen,  supplanting  falsehood  to  that  which  he  felt  for 
Esau’s  heady  self-will.”  “  We  dare  not  say  that  God 
could  distinctly  foresee  all  Jacob’s  supplanting  false¬ 
hood,  and  feel  no  disapprobation  whatever ;  it  would 
come  near  to  blasphemy.”  2  “Foresee,”  indeed! 
Why  not  say,  decreed  or  determined  “  falsehood  ”  ? 
Doubtless  because  it  would  not  only  come  near  to  being, 
but  would  be  blasphemy.  Yet  the  latter  is  the  real 
meaning  of  Dr.  Dabney  ;  or  at  least  what  his  position 
logically  and  irresistibly  means.  I  trust  the  reader  now 
sees  the  justness  of  my  charge  against  Dr.  Dabney. 
His  article  is  permeated  with,  and  many  of  his  assump¬ 
tions  are  based  upon,  the  divine  foresight  of  men’s 
actions.  As  a  Calvinistic  argument  it  is  extremely 
fallacious  :  yet  it  is  important  because  it  shows  the 
constant  tendency  of  Calvinists  to  leave  their  position, 
and  adopt  one-half  of  the  Arminian’s. 

(4)  Another  objection  against  the  solution  which 
we  are  considering,  is  that  it  makes  a  radical  antagon¬ 
ism  between  God  and  Jesus  Christ.  As  we  have  seen, 
President  Dabney  claims  that  God  has  never  purposed 
nor  promised  to  save  the  11011-elect.  He  is  an  earnest 


2  Pages  35,  52,  53,  55. 


AND  MAN’S.  MORAL  NATURK. 


99 


advocate  of  the  divine  sincerity  in  the  expressions  of 
compassion  ;  but  he  always  maintains  ‘  ‘  that  an  im¬ 
mutable  and  sovereign  God  never  had  but  one  will 
(one  purpose  or  volition)  as  to  this  lost  man  ;  as  a  faith¬ 
ful  God  would  never  publish  any  other  volition  than 
the  one  he  entertained,  but  that  it  was  entirely 
consistent  for  God  to  compassionate  where  he  never  pur¬ 
posed  nor  promised  to  save,  because  this  sincere  com¬ 
passion  was  restrained  within  the  limits  God  announced 
by  his  own  wisdom.”  Granting  this — for  the  sake 
of  the  argument — I  affirm  that  Jesus  Christ  went 
far  beyond  it,  teaching  that  so  far  as  his  purpose  or 
will  was  concerned  it  was  thwarted  by  the  unbelief  of 
men.  Although  the  truth  is  quite  prominently  revealed 
in  the  Gospels,  yet  perhaps  it  is  most  impressively 
taught  in  the  lamentation  of  Jesus  over  Jerusalem. 
“O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  thou  that  killest  the  proph¬ 
ets,  and  stonest  them  which  are  sent  unto  thee,  how 
often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together, 
even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings, 
and  ye  would  not”  (  Matt,  xxiii.  37).  It  is  true,  Dr. 
Dabney  not  only  notices  this  passage  but  also  shows 
the  absurdities  of  many  Calvinistic  interpretations  : 
but  while  this  is  justly  admired  by  all  Arminians,  they 
can  not  escape  the  conviction  that  the  new  solution 
makes  the  Father  and  the  Son  antagonistic.  Beyond 
all  controversy  the  tears  which  Jesus  shed  upon  this 
occasion  were  the  outward  manifestation  of  sincere 
pity.  Had  the  Saviour  remained  silent,  so  far  forth  as 
this  scene  is  concerned,  Dr.  Dabney’s  position  might 
be  correct.  But  such  was  not  the  fact.  The  Master 
spoke,  declaring  that  his  intention  would  have  resulted 
in  their  salvation  had  they  not  prevented.  Beyond  all 


IOO  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

dispute,  this  event  reveals  the  wicked  intention,  pur¬ 
pose  or  will  of  the  Jews  as  opposing  and  thwarting  the 
intention,  purpose  or  will  of  the  Saviour.  Thus  says 
Neander,  “  The  earnest  exclamation  of  Christ,  recorded 
in  Luke  xiii.  34,  Matt,  xxiii.  37,  distinctly  implies 
that  he  had  ofte?i  endeavored,  by  his  personal  teaching 
in  Jerusalem,  to  rouse  the  people  to  repentance  and 
conversion  that  they  might  be  saved  from  the  ruin 
then  impending  over  them.  ’  ’  3 

Dr.  Dabney  truly  says:  “It  is  our  happiness  to 
believe  that  when  we  see  Jesus  weeping  over  lost  Jeru¬ 
salem,  we  ‘  have  seen  the  Father  ’  ;  we  have  received 
an  insight  into  the  divine  benevolence  and  pity.” 
No  less  truly  do  the  words  of  Jesus  reveal  the  Father’s 
purpose  or  volition  to  save,  thwarted  by  the  perversity 
of  determined  sinners.  I11  a  different  sense  from  that 
meant  by  Dr.  Dabney  do  I  quote  his  words,  saying  : 
“Some  better  solution  must  be  found,  then,  of  this 
wondrous  and  blessed  paradox,  of  omnipotent  love 
lamenting  those  whom  yet  it  did  not  save.”  4  Unless 
Dr.  Dabney  can  purify  his  solution  of  the  four  objec¬ 
tions  which  are  now  before  the  reader,  that  which  he 
rejects  as  Pelagian — “  freewill  ” — is  yet  to  be  triumph¬ 
ant. 

Concerning  the  will  of  God  I  ask,  in  the  words  of 
Dr.  Dabney,  “Why  not  let  the  Scriptures  mean  what 
they  so  plainly  strive  to  declare?  ”  In  them  the  will 
of  God  is  revealed  in  two  different  aspects,  namely, 
the  actual  and  the  ideal.  The  ideal  will  of  God  is  the 
unconditioned  expression  of  his  sincere  desires.  It  is 
that  which  he  wishes  to  do,  and  would  accomplish 

3  “Life  of  Christ,”  p.  157. 

4  p.  61. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


IOI 


were  he  not  prevented  by  some  exterior  cause  or  causes. 
Thus  it  is  God’s  will,  volition,  or  purpose,  ideally  ex¬ 
pressed,  that  the  wicked  should  not  perish,  but  that 
all  should  come  to  repentance.  For  this  goal  he 
strives  with  all  the  influences  at  his  command.  Yet 
infallibly  knowing  who  will  yield  to  the  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  his  actual  will,  purpose,  or  volition, 
is  completely  realized  in  the  salvation  of  all  true  be¬ 
lievers.  Hence,  the  atonement,  is — in  one  sense — 
limited,  but  the  limitation  is  manward  instead  of  God- 
ward.  As  has  been  admirably  said  by  Dr.  John 
Miley  :  “  Nothing  respecting  the  atonement  is  more 
certain  than  the  real  conditionality  of  its  saving  grace. 
Hence,  it  is  a  mere  assumption  that  the  atonement  is 
necessarily  saving,  and,  therefore,  that  the  actual  sav¬ 
ing  is  the  extent  of  it . With  an  atonement  in 

vicarious  suffering  sufficient  for  all,  but  really  condi¬ 
tional  in  the  saving  result,  its  universality  is  in  full 
logical  accord  with  a  limited  actual  salvation.  .... 
Hence,  eternal  destinies  are  determined  according  as 
the  gospel  is  received  or  rejected.”  5 

At  this  stage  of  the  discussion — while  in  the  full 
light  of  the  atoning  love  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ — it 
is  proper  to  notice  the  recent  theological  movement 
among  evangelical  Congregationalists.  It  is  variously 
designated.  Opponents  have  called  it  “  The  Andover 
Controversy,”  “The  New  Departure.”  For  conven- 


5  “  The  Atonement  In  Christ,”  pp.  320,  324,  326.  “  There  is  but  one  ex¬ 

planation  of  the  helpless  position  and  ethical  poverty  of  newborn  man, 
and  of  his  subjection  to  the  law  of  gradual  development,  to-wit  :  that  over 
him  and  his  being,  neither  divine  omnipotence  nor  divine  love  holds  un¬ 
divided  sway  ,  but  his  own  freedom  is  a  co-operative  factor,  and  his  own 
acts  condition  both  the  operations  and  communications  of  God  ”  Dorner. 
‘‘  Bib.  Sacra,”  1879,  p.  54. 


102  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

ience  its  friends  have  adopted  the  term  “  New  Theol¬ 
ogy,”  or  have  described  it  as  a  “Renaissance.”  It 
has  two  important  features — the  positive  and  the  neg¬ 
ative.  It  believes  and  therefore  speaks.  It  doubts, 
and  therefore  questions.  Hence  its  relative  strength 
and  weakness.  Its  affirmations  are  not  new.  As  has 
been  said  by  an  able  advocate,  “  they  prevailed  in  the 
first  centuries  of  the  church,  while  the  stream  ran 
clear  from  the  near  fountain,  and  they  have  appeared 
all  along  in  individual  minds  and  schools,  as  the 
higher  peaks  of  a  mountain  range  catch  the  sunshine, 
while  the  base  is  enveloped  in  mist  and  shadow — not 
many,  and  often  far  separate,  but  enough  to  .show  the 
trend  and  to  bear  witness  to  the  light.  ’  ’  0 

Hence  the  “New  Theology”  is  a  strong  protest 
against,  and  a  radical  abandonment  of  Calvinism.  In 
some  important  respects  it  affiliates  with  Arminianism. 
The  chief  antagonisms  with  the  latter  are  in  its  prin¬ 
ciples  of  Eschatology,  which,  while  drawn  from  va¬ 
rious  sources  may  be  more  directly  traced  to  Dr.  Dorner, 
He  teaches  that  salvation  is  conditioned  on  the 
personal  acceptance  of  the  Saviour.  All  human  beings 
of  whatever  age  or  condition  who  have  not  exercised 
a  bona  fide  determination  for  or  against  the  historic 
Christ,  will  have  this  opportunity  in  the  future  life. 
This  acceptance  or  rejection — before  or  after  death — is 
necessary  to  decide  the  eternal  destiny  of  the  soul. 7 

What  that  destiny  will  be,  is  not  affirmed  by  Dor¬ 
ner  nor  by  his  American  allies.  He  concedes  that 
“  the  exegetical  grounds  for  the  statement  that  some 
will  be  forever  lost,  are  indeed  preponderant,”  In  his 

G  Rev.  T.  T.  Munger.  “  The  Freedom  of  Faith,”  p.  3. 

?  See  “  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,”  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  409,  412. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


103 


‘ 1  Orthodox  theology  of  To-Day,”  Dr.  Newman  Smyth 
says  the  Scriptures  ‘  ‘  hold  up  no  promise  of  the  here¬ 
after  to  any  man  who  here  and  now  determines  him¬ 
self  against  the  Spirit  of  Christ.”  Answering  some 
questions  propounded  by  members  of  the  Ecclesiasti¬ 
cal  Council  at  New  Haven,  Sept.  20,  1882,  he  said, 
“  There  is  nothing  definite  in  the  Scripture  with  re¬ 
gard  to  a  possible  future  probation.”  Consequently, 
so  far  as  the  “New  Theology”  postulates  a  future 
probation,  it  finds  its  justification  in  the  moral  axiom 
that  a  fair  or  “  decisive  probation  ”  is  the  condition  of 
a  divine  condemnation  ;  and  from  a  few  obscure  pas¬ 
sages  of  Scripture,  notably  1.  Pet.  iii.  19,  20,  and  iv. 
6.  But  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  Peter  teaches 
this  doctrine.  Scholars  of  equal  piety  and  learning 
do  not  agree.  Each  side  may  justly  claim  a  large 
number  of  distinguished  exegetes.  But  granting  all 
that  may  be  fairly  claimed  by  the  advocates  of  a  future 
probation,  their  position  is  Scripturally  untenable  ;  the 
most  that  can  be  claimed  from  these  passages  is  that 
Christ  preached  the  gospel  of  salvation  to  all  who 
lived  before  his  advent.  As  we  know  nothing  of  the 
reasons  for  the  supposed  proclamation  ;  as  there  is  not 
the  least  hint  that  the  alleged  mercy  is  extended  to 
any  who  have  lived  under  the  Christian  Dispensation, 
the  limits  of  the  discussion  are  greatly  circumscribed. 
But  this  is  not  the  end  of  the  matter.  The  Scriptural 
argument  is  not  simply  negative.  The  Word  of  God 
knows  no  future  probation  for  any  who  have  lived  since 
the  birth  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  many  prom¬ 
ises  and  warnings  presuppose  and  assert  that  our  eter¬ 
nal  destiny  is  determined  by  our  earthly  character. 
Delitzsch  has  well  said,  “If  this  pedagogic  form  of 


104  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

world  be  destroyed,  man  is,  and  remains,  that  which 
he  has  become  within  himself.  He  is,  and  remains  ; 
he  is  not  annihilated  ;  for  Scripture  no  more  teaches 
the  final  annihilation  of  the  wicked  than  it  does  their 
apokatastasis  or  restoration.  Human  reason  would 
like  in  one  way  or  another  to  abolish  the  dualism  with 
which  the  history  of  the  world  closes.  Let  her  do  it 
upon  her  own  responsibility,  but  let  her  not  falsify 
the  Scripture.  This  teaches  an  eternal  personal  con¬ 
tinuance  of  all  personal  beings,  and  a  continuance 
fundamentally  conditioned  by  what  they  have  become 
in  time.”  8 

Hence,  so  far  as  a  fair  probation  is  the  condition  of 
final  destiny,  the  Scripture’s  predicate  it  to  the  race. 
Here  then,  is  the  crucial  question,  What  is  a  fair  or 
decisive  probation  ?  Dorner’s  definition  is  untenable 
because  its  legitimate  conclusions  are  contradicted  by 
the  Word.  As  against  Calvinism,  he  is  right  in  main¬ 
taining  that  each  soul  will  be  treated  justly,  yea,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  yearnings  of  infinite  Love.  The  idea 
of  a  probation  has  no  place  in  the  Reformed  Theology. 
Extremes  meet.  One  unduly  exalts,  and  the  other 
denies  probation.  The  Scriptural  idea  of  probation 
involves  (i)  Sufficient  intelligence  to  distinguish 
between  right  and  wrong.  ( 2 )  Ample  power  to  choose 
the  right  and  reject  the  wrong.  So  far  as  a  personal 
acceptance  of  Jesus  Christ  is  necessary  to  salvation, 
there  is  another  element  in  probation,  namely,  (3) 
Sufficient  knowledge  of  his  atoning  love  as  to  justify 
a  faith  in  him. 

Wherever  this  last  condition  does  not  exist  a  per¬ 
sonal  acceptance  of  the  Saviour  is  not  necessary  to  sal- 


8  “  System  of  Biblical  Psychology,”  p.  554. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE}.  IO5 

vation.  “  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  bap¬ 
tizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.”  “  For  whosoever  shall  call 
upon  the  name  of  the  Ford  shall  be  saved.  How  then 
shall  they  call  on  him  in  whom  they  have  not  be¬ 
lieved  ?  ’  ’  and  how  shall  they  believe  in  him  of  whom 
they  have  not  heard  ?  and  how  shall  they  hear  without 
a  preacher  ?  ”  4  ‘  Then  Peter  opened  his  mouth  and  said, 
Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons  : 
but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him  and  worketh 
righteousness  is  accepted  with  him”  (Actsx.  34,  35). 
“  For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do 
by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these, 
having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves ; 
which  shew  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their 
hearts,  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their 
thoughts  the  meanwhile  accusing,  or  else  excusing, 
one  another”  (Rom.  ii.  14,  15).  In  all  ages  there 
has  been  a  spirit  of  faith  in  God  which  has  been  gra¬ 
ciously  counted  for  righteousness.  The  light  may 
have  been  dim,  the  faith  very  imperfect  ;  but  the 
loving  Father  saw  the  spirit  of  receptivity,  knew  the 
inner  strivings  after  a  nobler  life  and  the  prompt  yield¬ 
ing  to  the  Spirit’s  influences  :  hence  every  responsible 
being  has  a  fair  probation.  God  knows  all  the  condi¬ 
tions  of  each  soul.  He  has  an  infinite  understanding 
of  the  surroundings,  the  inherited  tendencies,  the 
hopes  and  fears,  the  love  and  hate  by  which  each 
character  is  formed,  and  therefore,  unerringly  judges  in 
accordance  with  eternal  right  and  infinite  love. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  this  view  undervalues  the 
atoning  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  On  the  con¬ 
trary  it  exalts  him  and  his  work  by  postulating  the 


Io5  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

atonement  as  the  basis  of  God’s  dealings  with  the 
race. 

According  to  Arminian  principles  the  divine  prom¬ 
ise  of  a  Saviour  was  the  condition  of  race  propagation. 
Hence,  the  universality  of  the  Holy  Spirit’s  work. 
The  Old  Testament  saints  were  enlightened  and 
guided  by  his  influences.  The  divine  promise  on 
which  they  relied  (Heb.  xi.  13)  were  fulfilled  in 
Christ.  They  were  saved  through  a  prospective 
Saviour,  while  we  are  saved  through  the  historic 
Saviour. 

So  far,  there  is  no  need  for  affirming  a  future  pro¬ 
bation  :  hence  the  second  phase  of  the  subject  refers 
to  irresponsible  adults  and  dying  infants.  Both 
classes  are  in  the  same  moral  condition  of  irresponsi¬ 
bility.  As  members  of  the  human  race  they  are  in¬ 
deed  subject  to  those  physical  and  psychological  laws 
by  which  man  exists.  Their  moral  natures  are  disor¬ 
ganized  :  they  have  sinward  tendencies,  which  in  the 
responsible,  result  in  a  free  determination  to  evil  :  but 
as  moral  responsibility  is  the  fundamental  condition 
of  sin,  they  are  not  and  can  not  be  justly  called  sinners. 
Sin  is  an  impossibility  without  a  free  choice  with  power 
to  the  contrary.  Of  course  this  proposition  is  appli¬ 
cable  only  to  those  who  have  never  deprived  them¬ 
selves  of  this  power  by  previous  sinning. 

These  fundamental  principles  clearly  understood, 
it  is  legitimate  to  affirm  the  salvation  of  all  dying  in¬ 
fants  and  irresponsible  adults.  True,  the  question  is 
speculative  ;  but  as  it  is  not  condemned  by  Scripture 
its  admissiblity  can  not  be  denied.  The  Master’s 
allusions  to  and  gracious  reception  of  little  children 
confirm  the  hypothesis.  The  mode  by  which  salva- 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  107 

« 

tion  is  bestowed  is  also  speculative.  Excluding  all 
theories  of  baptismal  regeneration,  the  following  are 
the  principal  suppositions  :  ( i)  All  dying  infants  be¬ 

come  moral  agents  after  death.  Exercising  a  holy 
choice  they  ‘  ‘  are  saved  on  the  ground  of  the  atone¬ 
ment  and  by  regeneration.”  This  seems  to  be  the 
prevailing  view  of  Congregationalists.  Prof.  Joseph 
Cook  says,  “  As  they  have  not  learned  the  evils  of  sin, 
it  is  to  be  hoped  that  in  death  at  the  sight  of  God’s 
face,  they  will  acquire  entire  harmony  of  soul  with 
him.”9  Prof.  G.  F.  Wright,  D.  D.,  says,  .  .  . 
our  general  confidence  in  God’s  abounding  mercy  leads 
us  to  believe  that  he  secures  their  development  under 
such  circumstances  that  they  will  be  saved.”  1  Doubt¬ 
less  this  is  substantially  the  view  of  Prof.  Egbert  C. 
Smyth  :  but  he  disagrees  with  Mr.  Cook  in  affirming 
that  it  necessarily  involves  a  future  probation.  (2) 
All  dying  infants  are  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  is  the  Presbyterian  doctrine.  The  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  says,  “  Elect  infants,  dying  in 
infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ  through 
the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he 
pleaseth.  So  also  are  all  other  elect  persons,  who  are 
incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry 
of  the  word.”  (3)  All  infants  enter  the  world  justi¬ 
fied  and  therefore  saved.  This  is  the  view  which  has 
most  prevailed  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
although  not  a  few  of  its  members  accept  the  second 
theory.  Leading  Arminians,  including  Wesley, 
Fletcher  and  Fisk  have  earnestly  maintained  that  so 
far  as  infant  justification  or  regeneration  exists,  it  “is 


9  “  New  Departures  in  and  from  Orthodoxy.” 
l  “  Bib.  Sac.,”  1874,  p.  545- 


108  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

not  congenital,  but  post-genital.”  The  position  is 
ably  stated  by  Dr.  D.  D.  Whedon.  “  The  born  indi¬ 
vidual,  thereby,  though  not  judicially  condemned,  is 
displacent,  and,  as  unholy,  is  offensive  to  God  ;  and 
so  the  reconciliation  of  that  displacency,  in  order  that 
God’s  face  may  shine  upon  him,  is  a  blood-bought 
grace.  That  unholiness  is  so  expiated,  and  that  divine 
displacency  is,  through  Christ’s  sole  merits,  so  propi¬ 
tiated,  that  the  infant’s  actual  guiltlessness  may  be 
divinely  recognized  and  held  by  God  available  for  his 
justification  as  truly  as  that  unreal,  but  virtual,  guilt¬ 
lessness  of  the  adult  procured  through  pardon.  He 
thereby  stands  in  the  same  essential  gracious  position 
as  the  forgiven  and  justified  adult.  No  justice,  hu¬ 
man  or  divine,  can  indeed  pardon  the  guiltless,  just 
because  there  is  nothing  to  pardon.  But  pardon  and 
declaratory  justification  are  two  things.  Christ,  by 
his  self-oblation,  is  entitled,  as  our  Advocate,  to  de¬ 
clare  the  infant’s  justification,  unworthy  though  he 
be  through  his  sinward  nature,  against  all  who  would 
lay  charge  against  him.  ‘  Who  shall  lay  anything  to 
the  charge  of  God’s  elect  ?  It  is  God  that  justifieth,’ 
just  because  ‘  it  is  Christ  that  died.’  And  thus  being 
justified  and  reconciled,  the  infant  becomes  fit  subject 
for  the  gracious  influence  of  the  Spirit  that  cures  that 
sinwardness  and  regenerates  the  nature ;  so  that 
( whether  we  use  the  term  regenerate  or  not)  the  infant 
is  in  the  same  essential  condition  as  that  into  which 
the  justified  and  regenerate  adult  is  brought  by  volun¬ 
tary  faith.”  2 

The  conception  is  beautiful  and  logically  self-con- 

2  “Methodist  Quarterly  Review,”  1883,  p.  757.  See  also  the  same  Re¬ 
view  for  1873,  p.  131. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE}. 


I09 


sistent.  Its  advocates  are  not  so  presumptuous  as  to 
think  there  are  no  objections.  On  the  contrary  ad¬ 
verse  arguments  have  been  fairly  considered,  and,  in 
their  opinion,  satisfactorily  answered.  I  shall  not 
attempt  to  decide  the  question.  My  purpose  is  real¬ 
ized  if  I  have  shown  that  the  salvation  of  dying 
infants  and  irresponsible  adults  does  not  necessarily 
demand  a  future  probation.3 

3  For  an  admirable  presentation  of  the  adequacy  of  man’s  present 
probation  see  Whedon’s  “  Will.”  Chap.  XI.  “  Equation  of  Probational 
Advantages.”  The  general  subject  is  also  discussed  in  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  1881, 
p.  622,  “  Is  Salvation  Possible  without  a  Knowledge  of  the  Gospel?  ”  and 

in  “  The  New  Englander,”  1882,  p.  751,  “  Provision  and  Method  of  Salva- 


CHAPTER  II. 

Calvinism  Teaches  Infant  Damnation. 

“I  am  not  aware  that  any  intelligent  Christian 
can  be  found  who  maintains  the  unauthorized  and 
appalling  position  that  infant  children,  who  are  not 
guilty  of  any  actual  sin,  either  outwardly  or  inwardly, 
will  be  doomed  to  misery  in  the  world  to  come. 

“  On  this  particular  point  our  opinions  have  been 
often  misrepresented.  We  are  said  to  hold  that  God 
dooms  a  whole  race  of  innocent  creatures  to  destruc¬ 
tion,  or  considers  them  all  deserving  of  destruction, 
for  the  sin  of  one  man.  Now,  when  I  examine  the 
writings  of  the  earlier  Calvinists  generally  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  original  sin,  I  find  nothing  which  resembles 
such  a  statement  as  this.” — Rev.  Leonard  Woods , 
D.  D. 


no 


CHAPTER  II. 


Calvinism  Teaches  Infant  Damnation. 

This  is  not  to  be  affirmed  of  modern  Calvinists. 
Without  exception  this  doctrine  is  now  denied  by  all 
the  followers  of  Calvin,  whether  in  the  Presbyterian, 
the  Congregational,  or  the  Baptist  Churches.  Hence 
were  it  not  that  the  Confession  of  Faith — which  does 
teach  the  doctrine — is  still  accepted  as  the  true  expo¬ 
nent  of  Calvinistic  theology  ;  and  especially  were  it 
not  that  this  fact  has  been  and  is  denied  by  Calvinistic 
theologians  the  reader  would  have  been  spared  this 
chapter.  The  subject  is  important  not  only  because  it 
involves  a  correct  understanding  of  history,  but  also 
because  it  enables  the  reader  to  judge  more  intelli¬ 
gently  of  the  merits  of  the  system  under  discussion. 

SECTION  i. 

Does  the  Westminster  Co?ifessio?i  of  Faith  Teach  Infant 

Damnation  f 

This  issue  was  forced  upon  the  Arminian.  His 
statements  of  history  are  constantly  denied  by  emi¬ 
nent  Calvinists.  Thus  Dr.  N.  F.  Rice,  after  having 
quoted  the  clause  from  the  Confession  which  relates  to 
this  subject,  says:  “  It  is  certain  that  Presbyterians 
have  never  understood  this  language  as  teaching  the 
doctrine  of  infant  damnation.  Persons  have  often 
asserted  that  they  had  heard  the  doctrine  preached,  but 


hi 


1 12  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

on  particular  inquiry  it  has  been  found  that  their 
statements  were  either  maliciously  false,  or  were  infer¬ 
ences  of  their  own  from  what  the  preacher  said.  But 
no  respectable  Presbyterian  writer  can  be  found,  either 
in  ancient  or  modern  times,  who  has  taught  that  any 

dying  in  infancy  are  lost . The  doctrine  of 

Infant  Damnation  was  charged  upon  the  Presbyterian 
Church  by  Alexander  Campbell,  in  a  public  debate 
with  the  author  of  these  pages.  In  reply  we  said : 

‘  I  am  truly  gratified  that  the  gentleman  has  brought 
forward  the  charge  against  us,  of  holding  the  doctrine 
of  the  damnation  of  infants  ;  because  it  is  believed  by 
many  who  are  unacquainted  with  our  views.  ’  He  says, 
our  Confession  of  Faith  teaches  this  doctrine.  This 
is  not  correct.  It  is  true  that  it  speaks  of  elect  in¬ 
fants, —  ‘  Elect  infants  dying  in  infancy  are  regenerated 
and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit.’  Are  all  in¬ 
fants,  dying  in  infancy,  elect  ?  All  Presbyterians  who 
express  an  opinion  on  the  subject,  so  believe.  The 
expression,  ‘elect  infants,’  the  gentleman  seems  to 
think,  implies  non-elect  infants  ;  but  I  call  upon  him 
to  produce  one  respectable  Presbyterian  author  who  has 
expressed  the  opinion  that,  ‘infants  dying  in  infancy 
are  lost.’  ....  In  answer  to  this  demand,  repeat¬ 
edly  made,  Mr.  Campbell  quoted  one  or  two  passages 
from  the  writings  of  Calvin  and  one  from  Turretine, 
in  which  those  great  and  good  men  opposed  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Pelagians  and  Socinians,  who  hold  that 
Adam’s  sin  did  not  affect  his  posterity,  and  that  men 
are  not  born  in  Original  sin  ;  and  in  which  they 
affirmed  that  all  Adam’s  posterity  are  exposed  to  eter¬ 
nal  death,  and  might  justly  have  been  left  to  perish. 
But  neither  of  them  taught  that  any  infant  is,  in  fact, 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  I  1 3 

lost.  They  simply  taught  that  the  salvation  of  all, 
infants  as  well  as  adults,  is  of  grace,  not  of  justice.”  1 
Professor  David  Swing  in  his  “  Truths  of  To-Day,” 
speaks  of  this  and  kindred  doctrines  as  follows  :  “  All 
those  formulas  which  looked  toward  a  dark  fatalism, 
or  which  destroyed  the  human  will,  or  indicate  the 
damnation  of  some  infants,  or  that  God,  for  his  own 
glory,  foreordained  a  vast  majority  of  the  race  to 

everlasting  death . I  have  declared  to  them 

that  the  Presbyterian  Church  had  left  behind  these 
doctrines,  and  that  her  religion  was  simply  Evangeli¬ 
cal,  and  not  par  excellence  the  religion  of  despair.” 
To  this  the  editors  of  “  The  Presbyterian  Quarterly  ” 
of  1874,  replied,  “  The  class  of  articles  here  caricatured 
and  rejected,  teach  none  of  the  things  thus  charged 
upon  them,  although  it  is  common  for  adversaries  thus 
to  reproach  them.  Nor  have  these  things  been  held 
more  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  past  than  of 
the  present.”  2  To  the  same  effect  speaks  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge.  Dr.  Krauth  in  his  work  on  “The  Conserva¬ 
tive  Reformation  and  its  Theology,”  made  some  state¬ 
ments  concerning  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith 
and  infant  salvation.  Dr.  Hodge  replies,  “We  are 
sorry  to  see  that  Dr.  Krauth  labors  to  prove  that  the 
Westminster  Confession  teaches  that  only  a  certain 
part,  or  some  of  those  who  die  in  infancy  are  saved  ; 
this  he  does  by  putting  his  own  construction  on  the 
language  of  that  Confession.  We  can  only  say  that 
we  never  saw  a  Calvinistic  theologian  who  held  that 
doctrine.  We  are  not  learned  enough  to  venture  the 
assertion  that  no  Calvinist  ever  held  it ;  but  if  all 


1  “God  Sovereign  and  Man  Free,”  pp.  120,  121. 

2  P-  518. 


1 14  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

Calvinists  are  responsible  for  what  every  Calvinist  has 
ever  said,  and  all  Lutherans  for  everything  Luthei  or 
Lutherans  have  ever  said,  then  Dr.  Krauth  as  well  as 
ourselves  will  have  a  heavy  burden  to  carry.” 

That  the  meaning  of  Dr.  Hodge  may  be  more 
clearly  understood,  let  me  recall  the  readers’  attention 
to  one  sentence — the  only  proof  given  against  the 
conclusion  of  Dr.  Krauth,  viz.,  “We  can  only  say 
that  we  never  saw  a  Calvinistic  theologian  who  held 
that  doctrine.”  By  this  Dr.  Hodge  must  mean  one  of 
two  things,  or  both  :  viz.,  (i)  That  he  never  person¬ 
ally  saw  a  Calvinistic  theologian  who  held  the  doc¬ 
trine;  or  (2)  That  he  never  saw  the  doctrine  in  the 
writings  of  any  Calvinistic  theologian.  But  if  he 
means  to  prove  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  does  not 
teach  infant  condemnation  because  he  never  saw  a 
theologian  who  held  that  doctrine,  it  amounts  to  noth¬ 
ing,  for  the  simple  reason  it  proves  too  much.  By 
the  same  kind  of  argument  I  can  prove  that  no  one 
has  ever  held  the  Ptolemaic  theory  of  astronomy. 
On  this  kind  of  reasoning  numberless  absurdities  may 
be  safely  promulgated. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  Dr.  Hodge  means  he  has 
never  seen  this  doctrine  in  the  writings  of  any  Calvin¬ 
istic  theologian,  it  proves  nothing  to  the  point.  Be¬ 
fore  the  assertion  can  prove  anything  favorable  to  the 
Confession,  Dr.  Hodge  must  be  able  to  say  that  he 
has  very  carefully  read  the  writings  of  every  Calvin¬ 
istic  theologian  before,  and  contemporary  with  the 
Westminister  Assembly.  This,  however,  is  the  very 
thing  he  has  not  done  :  hence  the  weakness  of  his 
position.  He  charges  Dr.  Krauth  with  “  putting  his 


3  “  Systematic  Theologj  ,”  Vol.  III.,  p.  605  :  note. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  115 

own  construction  on  the  language  of  the  Confession.” 
Is  Dr.  Hodge  innocent  of  the  same  charge  ? 

I11  this  chapter  I  shall  endeavor  to  find  the  true 
answer  to  the  question,  Does  Calvinism,  through  the 
Westminister  Confession  of  Faith,  teach  Infant  Con¬ 
demnation  ? 


SECTION  11. 

No  Proof  that  Only  Elect  Infants  Die. 

As  we  have  seen,  Dr.  Rice  and  Dr.  Hodge  claim 
that  infants  who  die  are  of  the  elect :  hence,  of  course, 
there  can  be  no  infant  condemnation.  But  where  is 
the  proof  of  this  ?  Let  us  see  if  it  is  in  the  Confession. 
“  God  from  all  eternity  did  by  the  most  wise  and  holy 
counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely  and  unchangeably 
ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  ;  yet  so  as  thereby 
neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin  ;  nor  is  violence  offered 
to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty  or  con¬ 
tingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather 
established.  Although  God  knows  whatsoever  may 
or  can  come  to  pass,  upon  all  supposed  condition  ; 
yet  hath  he  not  decreed  anything  because  he  foresaw 
it  as  future,  or  as  that  which  would  come  to  pass,  upon 
such  conditions.  By  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  man¬ 
ifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men  and  angels  are 
predestinated  unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  fore¬ 
ordained  to  everlasting  death.”  1 

From  these  declarations  three  legitimate  deductions 
irresistibly  follow  :  viz.,  (i)  There  are  persons  foreor¬ 
dained  to  eternal  condemnation  irrespective  of  their 
foreseen  rejection  of  Christ.  (2)  All  these  per- 


1  Pages  25,  26,  27. 


1 16  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

sons  have  been  infants  :  hence  ( 3)  There  are  non¬ 
elect  infants.  Now  one  of  two  things  must  be  true. 
(a)  None  of  the  non-elect  infants  die,  and  so  live 
beyond  the  age  of  infancy,  and  then  die,  and  are  ever¬ 
lastingly  condemned  :  or  (£)  Some  non-elect  infants 
die  in  infancy,  and  are  eternally  condemned.  If  none 
of  the  non-elect  infants  die  in  infancy,  I  ask  for  the 
proof.  It  is  not  in  the  Scriptures,  nor  does  the  Con¬ 
fession  pretend  to  give  any  Scripture  bearing  on  this 
point.  The  only  passages  given  are  Luke  xviii.  15,  16, 
and  Acts  ii.  38,  39.  The  former  reads  as  follows : 
“And  they  brought  unto  him  also  infants,  that  he 
would  touch  them  ,  but  when  his  disciples  saw  it,  they 
rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  called  them  unto  him,  and 
said,  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  for¬ 
bid  them  not:  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God.” 
Observe,  it  says  “little  children.”  It  makes  no  dis¬ 
tinction  :  hence  all  little  children  are  included.  So 
far  as  the  words  and  actions  of  the  Saviour  are  con¬ 
cerned,  they  embrace  the  non-elect,  as  well  as  the 
elect  infants  Not  a  hint  is  given  regarding  the  non¬ 
elect  infants  dying  or  not  dying,  and  therefore,  to 
interpret  the  Master’s  words  as  teaching  that  only 
elect  infants  die,  is  a  clear  begging  of  the  question. 

The  passage  in  Acts  is,  “Then  Peter  said  unto 
them,  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye 
shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the 
promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all 
that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call.” 

This  has  no  reference  to  the  question  in  dispute. 
It  simply  mentions  the  children  of  believers  and  those 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  1 1 7 

afar  off.  It  says  not  a  word  even  indirectly  concern¬ 
ing  the  death  of  any  person,  much  less  elect  or  non¬ 
elect  infants.  Hence,  if  the  Confession  has  no  proof, 
either  in  itself  or  from  Scripture,  affirming  that  only 
elect  infants  die,  then  so  far  as  the  present  question 
is  concerned  there  is  no  proof  and  the  assumption  is 
wholly  groundless.  But  the  eternal  condemnation  of 
infants  is  so  very  repugnant  to  our  moral  nature  that 
many  Calvinists  declare  the  Confession  must  be  inter¬ 
preted  in  favor  of  all  dying  infants.  This  moral 
repugnance  however,  is  soon  seen  to  be  narrow  ;  for 
is  it  any  worse  for  God  to  condemn  dying  infants, 
than  it  is  to  condemn  persons  before  they  were  born, 
and  hence  as  innocent  as  the  infants  ?  There  is  not  a 
particle  of  difference.  Both  classes  are  condemned  at 
the  same  time,  even  from  all  eternity.  Therefore  this 
intense  moral  repugnance,  which  but  a  moment  ago 
was  in  favor  of  the  Calvinist,  now  recoils  with  a  strong 
force  against  this  same  Calvinist,  and  says  The  eternal 
condemnation  of  any  one  irrespective  of  a  foreseen 
rejection  of  saving  truth  is  a  horrible  libel  on  God’s 
character. 

Moreover,  what  a  curious  position  is  necessitated 
by  this  assumption  that  only  elect  infants  die  !  If  the 
death  of  an  infant  is  the  certain  indication  of  election, 
then  it  is  possible  for  man  to  secure  the  election  of  every 
infant  now  in  existence.  Beyond  all  reasonable  doubt 
there  are  infants  now  living,  of  whom  it  may  be  said, 
They  are  of  the  non-elect :  Yet  their  destiny  which  has 
been  decreed  of  God  from  all  eternit}^  can  be  reversed 
by  a  single  act  of  man.  To  say  this  is  not  susceptible 
of  demonstration  is  to  affirm  the  exact  condition  of  the 

• 

Calvinistic  postulate  ‘  ‘  all  dying  infants  are  of  the 


Il8  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

elect.”  Unquestionably  among  the  abandoned  classes 
of  society  are  rnanj^  dying  infants,  who,  were  they  to 
live,  would  become  dissolute  and  hardened  characters. 

SECTION  III. 

Infant  Condemnation  was  Taught  Prior  to  the  West¬ 
minster  Assembly . 

Augustine  taught  “That  infants  dying  without 
baptism,  will  on  account  of  their  imputed  sin  be  in 
the  mildest  punishment.”  2 

Friar  Berthold  says,  “  If  your  children  die  without 
baptism  or  are  baptized  improperly,  they  can  never 
enter  into  the  heavenly  joys.  They  go,  together  with 
the  Jewish  and  Gentile  children  who  are  still  without 
belief,  to  the  limbus  to  which  those  of  old  went. 
There  they  do  not  suffer  any  pain,  except  this  that 
they  do  not  go  to  heaven.”  3 

Thomas  Aquinas  says,  “  Children  who  die  without 
baptism  have  not  that  hope  of  eternal  salvation  which 
the  fathers  had  prior  to  the  manifestation  of  Christ.  ’ ’  4 
Zanchius  affirms,  “  Infants  are  deservedly  damned 
on  account  of  the  nature  they  have,  to  wit,  a  wicked 
nature,  repugnant  to  the  laws  of  God.”  5 

We  now  come  to  John  Calvin.  Let  us  see  how  he 
and  Dr.  Rice  agree.  “  Moreover,  infants  who  are  to  be 
saved  (and  that  some  are  saved  at  this  age  is  certain), 
must,  without  question,  be  previously  regenerated  by 
the  Lord.”  “  I  again  ask  how  it  is  that  the  fall  of 
Adam  involves  so  many  nations  with  their  infant 

2  Prof.  E.  A.  Park,  D.  D.  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  1851. 

3  Hagenbach’s  “  Hist,  of  Doc.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  131. 

4  Ibid. 

5  11  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,”  1873,  p.  443. 


•* 


AND  MAN'S  MORAL,  NATURE.  H9 

children  in  eternal  death  without  remedy,  unless  that 
.  it  so  seemed  meet  to  God?  ”  6 

Peter  Martyr  says :  ‘  ‘  Neither  must  it  be  thought  that 
I  would  promise  salvation  unto  all  the  children  of  the 

faithful  which  depart  without  the  sacrament . 

I  dare  not  promise  certain  salvation,  particularly  unto 
any  that  deparleth  hence.  For  there  be  some  children 
of  the  saints  which  belong  not  unto  predestination.”  7 

The  Synod  of  Dort  met  on  the  13th  day  of  Novem¬ 
ber,  1618,  to  oppose  Arminianism.  Its  members  were 
strongly  Calvinistic,  and  as  Calvin  had  taught  infant 
condemnation,  they  would  naturally  do  the  same.  H. 
Alting  who  was  a  member  of  the  Synod  replies  to,  and 
repels  the  charge,  and  here  I  quote  :  “  Third,  that  we 
hold  and  teach  the  salvation  of  all  infants  indiscrim¬ 
inately,  who  die  without  baptism.  No  truly  orthodox 
theologian  has  ever  said  or  written  this.  Neither 
Zwingle  nor  Calvin,  nor  any  other  of  like  note  has  so 
taught.”8  Mr.  Alting  was  a  learned  divine  and  as 
far  as  we  know  an  honest  man.  From  him  we  learn 
what  was  the  orthodox  opinion  on  this  subject  and 
hence  if  the  Synod  of  Dort  did  not  teach  infant  con¬ 
demnation,  so  far  forth  it  was  heterodox.  But  the 
charge  of  heresy  has  never  been  raised  against  this 
Synod,  and  therefore  it  is  more  than  probable  that  it 
taught  infant  condemnation.  The  Synod  officially 
declared,  “Of  the  infants  of  believers  only,  who  die 
of  an  age  before  they  can  be  indoctrinated,  we  deter¬ 
mine  that  they  are  saved.”  9 

6  “  Institutes.”  B.  IV.,  Ch.  XVI.,  Sec.  17,  and  Ch.  XXIII.,  Sec.  7. 

7  ‘‘Methodist  Quarterly  Review,”  July,  1873,  p.  444. 

8  “Theologia  Elenchtica,”  p.  377.  As  quoted  in  ‘‘  Methodist  Quarterly 
Review,”  1873,  P-  444- 

9  ‘‘Acta  Dordrechtana,”  p.  58.  As  quoted  in  “  Methodist  Quarterly 
Review,”  1873,  p.  442. 


120  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

SECTION  IV. 

Infant  Condemnation  Taught  by  the  Westminster 

Assembly . 

To  a  large  degree  the  Assembly  was  composed  of 
pronounced  Calvinists.  It  met  in  1643,  only  twent}^- 
five  years  after  the  Synod  of  Dort.  Its  doctrines  were 
similar  to  those  of  Dort.  Dr.  Shedd  says:  “The 
system  of  Doctrine  constructed  by  this  Assembly  is 
thoroughly  Calvinistic,  and  bears  a  close  resemblance 
to  the  canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.”  1  But  there  is  a 
vast  difference  between  a  belief  in  the  condemnation 
of  some  infants  and  a  belief  in  the  salvation  of  all 
infants.  Hence  it  is  highly  probable  that  the  As¬ 
sembly  believed  in  infant  condemnation  unless  it 
emphatically  stated  the  contrary.  There  is  no  such 
statement  on  record.  If  the  Assembly  believed  in 
infant  condemnation  it  is  highly  probable  that  it  tes¬ 
tified  concerning  that  belief ;  for  (1)  They  were  honest 
men.  (2)  They  possessed  strong  convictions.  (3)  The 
occasion  was  important.  (4)  Every  member  was  obliged 

to  take  the  following  oath  :  “I - ,  do  seriously 

promise  and  vow  in  the  presence  of  Almighty  God, 
that  in  this  Assembly,  whereof  I  am  a  member,  I  will 
maintain  nothing  in  point  of  doctrine  but  what  I  be¬ 
lieve  to  be  the  most  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God  ; 
nor  in  point  of  discipline,  but  what  I  shall  conceive  to 
conduce  most  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  and 
peace  of  his  church.”  2 

The  only  record  we  have  from  this  representative 
body  of  divines  on  the  subject  under  discussion  is, 

1  “  History  of  Doctrine.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  480. 

2  Hetherington.  “  History  of  West.  Assembly,”  p.  101. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  12 1 

“  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and 
saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when, 
and  where,  and  how  he  pleaseth.”  3  It  is  very  prob¬ 
able  that  this  was  meant  to  teach  infant  condemnation  ; 
for  (i )  The  doctrine  was  held  by  Dr.  Twisse,  the  first 
Prolocutor  of  the  Assembly.  He  taught  that  “  Many 
thousands,  even  all  the  infants  of  Turks  and  Saracens 
dying  in  original  sin,  are  tormented  by  him  in  hell- 
fire  ”  4 

(2)  If  the  declaration  of  the  Confession  was  not 
intended  to  teach  infant  condemnation  it  must  have 
been  so  understood,  not  only  by  those  attending,  but 
also  by  all  who  were  contemporary  with  the  Assembly. 
If  it  had  been  interpreted  as  teaching  the  salvation  of 
all  dying  infants  it  would  have  been  condemned  by 
many  Calvinists  such  as  Dr.  Twisse  and  highly  ap¬ 
plauded  by  many  Arminians.  But  so  far  as  history 
records  the  events  of  this  period  such  a  condemnation, 
or  approbation  was  never  in  existence.  (3)  If  the 
passage  in  question  does  not  teach  infant  condemna¬ 
tion  those  who  composed  it  were  either  dishonest  or 
very  ignorant.  Beyond  all  controversy  the  Assembly 
made  and  left  the  impression  that  the  doctrine  of  in¬ 
fant  condemnation  was  the  teaching  of  Scripture.  As 
we  have  seen  the  members  were  honest.  Hence  their 
words  are  extremely  ambiguous,  or  else  they  intended 
to  teach  the  doctrine.  But  they  were  too  intelligent 
to  be  guilty  of  such  ambiguity,  for,  as  Baxter  says, 
“  The  divines  there  congregated  were  men  of  eminent 
learning  and  goodness,  and  ministerial  ability  and 

3  Confession,”  p.  68. 

4  ‘‘Vindicire  Grat.  Protest,  et  Prov.  Dei.” 

Review,”  1873,  p.  443. 


“  Methodist  Quarterly 


122 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


fidelity  ;  and,  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge,  the  Christian 
world  since  the  days  of  the  Apostles  had  never  seen  a 
synod  of  more  excellent  men  than  this  Synod  and  the 
Synod  of  Dort.”  5 6 

“  Hallam  admits  that  they  were  equal  in  learning, 
good  sense,  and  other  merits  to  any  Lower  House  of 
Convocation  that  ever  made  figure  in  England.”0 
Then  if  the  members  of  the  Assembly  were  not  dis¬ 
honest  nor  ignorant,  they  meant  to  and  did  declare 
that  which  they  actually  believed.  Hence  the  passage 
in  question  is  a  part  of  the  Calvinistic  theology  of  the 
Seventeenth  Century,  and  as  thus  related  unequivo¬ 
cally  teaches  infant  condemnation. 

SECTION  v. 

The  Doctrine  More  or  Less  Distinctly  Taught  Since  the 

Westminster  Assembly . 

The  few  extracts  which  I  have  selected  for  this  sec¬ 
tion  will  appropriate^  form  the  conclusion  to  the  sub¬ 
ject  and  also  enable  the  reader  to  see  how  accurately 
our  Calvinistic  theologians  have  interpreted  history. 
The  following  is  from  the  celebrated  poet  and  theolo 
gian  Dr.  Isaac  Watts  :  “But  whereas  Dr.  Ridgley 
supposes  the  immortal  existence  of  such  infant  souls  in 
a  sort  of  stupid  ignorance  or  insensibility,  which  the 
Scripture  nowhere  intimates,  I  think  it  is  much  more 
natural  and  reasonable  to  suppose  that  God  will  de¬ 
prive  both  body  and  soul  of  life  which  Adam  had  for¬ 
feited  for  himself  and  for  them  according  to  the  first 
threatening  of  death.  And  since  the  book  of  Script- 

5  “  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,”  1S48,  p.  585. 

6  “  Presbyterian  Review,”  1874,  p.  732. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAE  NATURE. 


123 


ure  has  not  revealed  it,  I  can  not  find  it  in  the  book  of 
reason  ;  nor  can  I  conceive  what  end  it  can  attain  in 
divine  providence,  to  continue  so  many  millions  of  in¬ 
fant  souls  in  an  eternal  state  of  stupor.  Is  it  agree¬ 
able  to  the  conduct  of  infinite  wisdom,  and  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  God,  to  maintain  such  an  innumerable 
multitude  of  idiots  equal  in  number  to  almost  all  the 
rest  of  the  human  race,  in  a  long,  endless  duration,  and 
to  reign  over  such  an  immense  nation  of  senseless  and 
thoughtless  immortals?  ....  Upon  the  whole, 
therefore,  the  state  of  non-existence  to  which  we  here 
suppose  them  to  be  reduced  after  death,  is  much  more 
probable,  being  the  least  demerit  of  imputed  sin,  or 
an  everlasting  forfeiture  of  life,  and  a  sort  of  endless 
punishment  without  pain.”  The  difference  between 
children  of  pious  and  non-pious  parents  is  clearly 
drawn  in  the  following  :  “I  add  in  the  last  place, 
that  if  all  children  dying  in  infancy,  are  certainly 
saved,  what  are  the  special  privileges  which  are  so 
often  asserted  in  Scripture  to  belong  to  the  children  of 
pious  parents  and  the  seed  of  Abraham,  in  having 
God  to  be  their  God  ?  ”  8 

Dr.  Nathanael  Emmons  says  of  God,  ”  He  has  not 
been  pleased  to  inform  us  expressly  whether  he  does 
renew  the  hearts  of  a  whole,  or  a  part,  or  none  of 
those  little  children  who  die  soon  after  they  become 
moral  agents.  As  they  then  become  morally  depraved, 
it  is  plain,  that  in  point  of  justice,  he  may  then  leave 
them  all  to  perish  in  their  native  depravity  and  guilt. 
Or  in  mercy  he  may  renew  them  all.  But  from  all 
the  light  we  can  find  in  Scripture  on  this  subject,  it 
seems  to  be  the  most  probable  opinion  that  he  renews 


8  “Works.”  Vol.  III.,  pp.  497,  502. 


124  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

only  some  of  those  who  die  soon  after  they  become 
morally  depraved  and  guilty.  ”  Before  these  remarks 
can  be  thoroughly  understood  we  must  know  at  what 
age  Dr.  Emmons  predicated  moral  agency.  Concern¬ 
ing  this,  the  editor  of  Dr.  Emmon’s  works,  Dr.  Ide, 
say,  “His  own  belief  is  as  clearly  expressed  in  the 
body  of  the  discourse  that  they  become  moral  agents 
as  soon  as  they  become  natural  agents.”  9 

Dr.  K.  D.  Griffin  is  not  quite  so  positive.  “Jus¬ 
tice  therefore  approved  of  the  actual  destruction  of  a 
whole  race  that  were  to  be  born  infants.  They  meet 
a  condemnation  at  the  threshold  of  their  existence. 
Their  just  doom  in  the  cradle  is,  that  first  or  last  the)* 
shall  sink  to  perdition.  And  this  doom  would  have 

been  just  had  no  Saviour  been  provided . A 

large  part  of  the  race  die  in  infancy  and  go  to  heaven 
or  hell.  If  to  the  latter,  (which  for  certain  reasons  I 
hope  is  not  the  case,)  then  they  justly  perish;  if  to 
the  former,  then  they  are  saved  by  grace  and  by 
Christ,  and  therefore  might  justly  have  been  con¬ 
signed  to  death.”  1 

In  an  article  written  some  years  since  for  ‘  ‘  The 
Interior,”  Professor  W.  M.  Blackburn,  D.  D.,  frankly 
admits  the  validity  of  my  position,  he  says,  “By  the 
words  ‘covenant’  and  ‘elect’  the  Westminster  Assembly 
meant  to  run  a  line  through  the  adult  world.  While 
thus  applying  those  terms  to  adults,  they  debate  about 
the  ‘  elect  of  infants,’  and  the  same  line  was  evidently 
run  through  the  class  of  dying  infants.  The  ‘  elect 
infants  ’  are  those  within  the  covenant  of  redemption.  ” 2 

^  “  Works.”  Vol.  II.,  pp.  626,  625. 

1  “Divine  Efficiency,”  pp.  69,  70. 

2  See  also  the  testimony  of  Dr.  G.  E.  Prentiss.  “  Presbyterian  Review,” 
July,  1383. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


I25 


In  concluding  this  subject  I  doubt  not  the  candid 
reader  will  readily  see  whose  construction  I  have 
placed  upon  the  Confession  of  Faith.  It  is  neither 
Dr.  Krauth’s,  Dr.  Hodge’s  nor  mine.  It  is  the  con¬ 
struction  of  the  members  of  the  Westminster  Assem¬ 
bly,  and  as  such,  is  entitled  to  our  implicit  confidence. 
That  the  issue  should  have  terminated  so  over¬ 
whelmingly  against  these  honored  divines  is  no  fault 
of  mine.  I  have  simply  quoted  facts  which  for  some 
unaccountable  reason  they  thought  best  to  deny. 
Since  the  above  was  written -I  have  examined  the  re¬ 
cent  work  by  Dr.  Charles  Briggs.  He  says,  “We  are 
able  to  say  that  the  Westminster  divines  were  unani¬ 
mous  on  this  question  of  the  salvation  of  elect  infants 
only.  We  have  examined  the  greater  part  of  the 
writings  of  the  Westminster  divines,  and  have  not 
been  able  to  find  any  different  opinion  from  the  ex¬ 
tracts  given.  -  The  Presbyterian  churches  have  de¬ 
parted  from  their  standards  on  this  question  and  it  is 
simple  honesty  to  acknowledge  it.  We  are  at  liberty 
to  amend  the  Confession,  but  we  have  no  right  to  dis¬ 
tort  it  and  to  pervert  its  grammatical  and  historical 
meaning.” 


3  “  Whither  ?  ”  p.  135 


CHAPTER  III. 

Calvinism  Contradicts  the  Bibee  by  Declaring 
Saving  Faith  to  be  a  Direct  Gift  of  God. 

“  In  order  that  Christ  may  do  anything  for  a  man, 
he  everywhere  prescribes  an  absolutely  necessary  con¬ 
dition.  This  condition  is  faith.  Christ  always  says  : 
‘  If  you  would  be  saved  by  me,  you  must  believe  me.’ 

.  ...  So  always  between  all  that  Christ  can  do  and 
longs  to  do  for  men  and  the  men  themselves  rises  this 

inevitable  and  rocky  condition,  faith . Christ 

respects  a  man’s  free  volition.  Faith  is  that  move¬ 
ment  of  the  soul  through  which  it  passes  into  surrender 
to  him  and  seizure  of  him.  Faith  is  the  appropriating 
faculty.  Without  faith,  nothing  in  religion  is  pos¬ 
sible  ;  with  faith,  everything  is  possible,  because  by 
faith  the  soul  allows  the  incoming  and  the  energy  of 
the  saving  Christ.” 

—Rev.  Way  land  Hoyt ,  D.  D. 


126 


CHAPTER  III. 


Calvinism  Contradicts  the  Bible  by  Declaring 
Saving  Faith  to  be  a  Direct  Gift  of  God. 

Having  considered  the  Atonement  as  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  God’s  universal  offer  of  mercy,  it  is  now  in 
order  to  turn  our  attention  to  that  which  secures  to 
the  individual,  the  blessings  of  Christ’s  death,  namely, 
Saving  Faith. 


SECTION  i. 

Calvinism  Declares  that  Faith  is  Not  a  Condition  of 

Salvation. 

This  affirmation  is  emphatically  denied  by  some 
Calvinists  among  whom  is  the  Rev.  Robert  Aikman, 
D.  D.  In  his  article  “  The  Position  of  Calvinism,”  he 
says:  “Now  the  decrees  of  salvation  are  uncondi¬ 
tional  as  being  the  self-originated,  independent  pur¬ 
poses  of  the  divine  mind,  but  the  salvation  which  is 
decreed  is  a  salvation  whose  conditions  are  faith, 

repentance  and  love . There  are  none  who 

endeavor  more  fully  to  proclaim  the  conditions  of 
salvation  than  we  do.”1 

The  whole  subject  depends  on  the  question,  What 
is  meant  by  the  term  “conditions”  ?  Kvidently  by 
it  Dr.  Aikman  means  one  thing,  while  Arminians 
mean  something  totally  different.  Dr.  Aikman  prob- 

1  “Methodist  Quarterly  Review,”  1873,  p.  317. 

127 


128  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

ably  means  that  as  long  as  faith,  repentance  and  love 
are  not  exercised  by  the  individual,  salvation  is  not  be¬ 
stowed.  True,  this  may  be  a  condition  in  a  certain 
restricted  sense  :  but  as  thus  understood,  the  source 
of  the  given  condition  is  never  sought.  Or  in  other 
words,  according  to  Calvinism  God’s  election  to  sal¬ 
vation  is  orderly  ;  the  elect  are  not  separated  from  the 
non-elect  until  God  gives  them  repentance,  faith  and 
love.  These  graces  are  the  outward  conditions  or 
occasions  of  the  secret,  irresistible  love  of  God.  He 
makes  the  universal  promise  to  save  all  who  will 
believe,  and  in  the  elect  he  fulfills  the  condition  by 
giving  them  repentance,  faith  and  love  ;  as  a  conse¬ 
quence  they  are  known  as  among  the  redeemed. 
This  is  a  distinction  without  a  valid  difference,  for  if 
the  divine,  irresistible  grace  makes  good  the  condi¬ 
tions,  the  individual  has  not  performed  them,  and 
hence,  salvation  is  really  unconditional.  That  this  is 
all  the  conditionality  of  salvation  allowed  by  Calvin¬ 
ism,  I  shall  now  attempt  to  prove. 

In  chapter  second  of  Part  First  I  discussed  at 
length  the  question  “  Are  God’s  Decrees  Conditional 
or  Unconditional  ”  ?  I  there  made  it  clear  that  every 
Calvinistic  writer  from  Augustine  to  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge  had  taught  that  the  decrees  were  unconditional. 
Inasmuch  therefore  as  salvation  is  an  essential  part  of 
the  decrees,  and  especially  as  Dr.  Dabney  has  informed 
us  that  the  decrees  are  one,  the  conclusion  is  irresist¬ 
ible  that  salvation  is  unconditional.  But  it  may  be 
profitable  to  notice  what  a  few  of  these  writers  say 
concerning  faith,  repentence  and  love  as  conditions  of 
salvation.  John  Sladen  taught  “Faith  and  repent¬ 
ance  are  not  the  conditions  of  God’s  decreeing  salva- 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


129 


tion  to  any,  but  the  qualifications  of  the  persons  whom 
God  has  absolutely  decreed  to  save.”  Andrew  Fuller 
says:  “The  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  predestination 
supposes  that  holiness  of  heart  and  life  are  as  much 
the  object  of  divine  appointment  as  future  happiness, 
and  that  the  connection  can  never  be  broken.”  The 
following  from  Dr.  Griffin  clearly  shows  that  I  have 
correctly  defined  what  Calvinists  mean  by  “condi¬ 
tion.”  “Faith  (the  condition  of  salvation)  and 
holiness  generally,  instead  of  being  independent  acts 
of  the  creature  under  the  persuasions  of  the  Spirit,  are 
the  gift  of  God.”  The  following  is  from  Dr.  John 
Dick  and  admirably  sets  forth  both  views.  ‘  ‘  I  remark 
once  more  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  absolute  and 

unconditional . Here  we  have  many  opponents, 

Lutherans,  Arminians,  Jesuits . When  he  de¬ 

creed  to  save  those  who  should  believe,  he  decreed  to 
give  them  faith . That  any  decree  is  condi¬ 

tional  in  the  sense  of  our  opponents,  that  it  depends 
upon  the  will  of  man,  of  which  he  is  sovereign,  so  that 
he  may  will  or  not  will  as  he  pleases,  we  deny.”  Dr. 
George  Duffield  declares  “  New  School  Presbyterians 
do  not  affirm  that  faith  foreseen  is  the  condition  with 
God  for  his  decree  of  election.”  Dr.  Venema  says, 
“The  act  of  the  decree  is  absolute  ;  not  uncertain  or 
doubtful.  It  is  not  suspended  on  any  condition  on 
the  part  of  man.”  Moreover,  this  is  precisely  what 
Dr.  Aiktnan  believes  and  has  said  ;  for  on  page  313 
of  his  article  from  which  I  have  quoted,  he  gives  the 
view  of  Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor,  “The  orthodox  doctrine  is 
not  that  God  has  purposed  to  save  a  part  of  mankind 
on  condition  of  foreseen  repentence  and  faith,  ’  ’  heartily 
indorsing  it  by  saying,  ‘  ‘  If  this  is  ‘  modified  Armin- 


130  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

ianism  ’  some  of  us  would  be  happy  to  have  it  pervade 
all  the  pulpits  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.” 

Against  this  view  the  Arminian  strongly  protests. 
He  affirms  that  God  has  made  provision  for  the  salva¬ 
tion  of  all  ;  has  promised  to  save  all  who  will  repent 
of  their  sins  and  exercise  faith  in  his  only  begotten 
Son  :  that  this  condition  must  be  fulfilled  by  each 
individual  under  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
This  being  man’s  duty,  God  can  not  save  unless  it  has 
been  performed  ;  hence  so  far  forth  as  man  will  not 
believe,  will  not  exercise  faith  in  the  Saviour,  to  that 
same  degree  is  the  desire  of  God  thwarted.  Were  all 
men  to  meet  the  required  condition,  the  ideal  plan  of 
God  would  become  the  actual.  Having  thus  briefly 
outlined  the  contents  of  this  chapter,  I  shall  attempt 
to  show  that  this  is  the  teaching  of  Scripture. 

SECTION  11. 

The  Importa7icc  of  Faith. 

On  this  subject  the  words  of  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  are 
admirable:  he  says,  “As  so  much  prominence  is 
assigned  to  faith  in  the  Scriptures,  as  all  the  promises 
of  God  are  addressed  to  believers,  and  as  all  the  con¬ 
scious  exercises  of  spiritual  life  involve  the  exercise  of 
faith,  without  which  they  are  impossible,  the  import¬ 
ance  of  this  grace  can  not  be  overestimated.  To  the 
theologian  and  to  the  practical  Christian  it  is  indis¬ 
pensable  that  clear  and  correct  views  should  be  enter¬ 
tained  on  the  subject.”  2  As  a  race  of  responsible 
creatures,  man  is  hopelessly  lost  in  sin  without  divine 
intervention.  Having  an  infinite  love  for  all  his  chil- 


'*■  “Theology.”  Vol.  III.,  p.  41. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  131 

dren,  God  sincerely  desires  their  reclamation.  But 
how  shall  this  be  accomplished  ?  To  man  the  problem 
is  indeed  insolvable.  He  sees  at  a  glance  that  force  is 
not  adequate  ;  that  spirit  can  not  be  governed  by  the 
laws  and  regulations  of  matter  ;  that  a  moral  or  spirit¬ 
ual  power  is  absolutely  needed  which  shall  at  once  free 
the  soul  from  the  dominion  of  sin  and  re-inspire  the 
heart  with  new  hope.  Beyond  this  his  mind  can  not 
go,  and  in  the  agony  of  despair,  the  sinful  soul  fre¬ 
quently  cries  out,  “  O  wretched  man  that  I  am,  who 
shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?  ’  ’  But 
God,  whose  ways  are  past  finding  out,  is  wiser  than 
man.  In  the  divine  counsels  two  principles  were  to  be 
employed  which  should  secure  that  for  which  the  sages 
and  philanthropists  had  vainly  striven  ;  viz.,  (i)  The 
Incarnation  of  Absolute  Truth.  God  is  truth,  and 
hence,  the  human  mind — originally  created  in,  and 
even  now  bearing  to  some  degree  the  divine  image — 
was  made  for  truth.  Falsehood  is  the  enemy  of  the 
race  no  less  than  of  God.  The  normal  action  of  the 
intellect,  heart  and  conscience  is  to  seek  for,  and  repose 
in  truth. 

“The  mind  was  formed  to  mount  sublime 
Beyond  the  narrow  bounds  of  time — 

To  everlasting  things.” 

This,  however,  it  can  not  do  if  it  is  not  m  sympa¬ 
thy  with  truth.  Nor  is  it  too  much  to  say  that  its 
flight  upward  will  be  seriously  hindered  if  it  lives  in 
the  midst  of  insincerit}^. 

It  is  much  easier  to  tell  men  how  to  live  truly  than 
to  demonstrate  the  principles  in  daily  life.  Plato, 
Socrates  and  Confucius  fairly  succeeded  in  the  former, 
but  most  ignominiously  failed  in  the  latter  :  hence  it 


132  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

has  ever  been  the  world’s  great  need  that  absolute 
truth  should  be  embodied  in  a  living  representative. 
This  we  find  in  Jesus  Christ  of  whom  the  Baptist  said, 
“  He  whom  God  hath  sent  speaketh  the  words  of  God; 
for  God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure  unto  him.” 
Speaking  of  himself  the  Master  declared  unto  Pilate, 
“  Thou  sayest  I  am  a  King.  To  this  end  was  I  born, 
and  for  this  cause  came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should 
bear  witness  unto  the  truth.”  Thus  it  was  the  life- 
work  of  Jesus  Christ  to  teach  men  “the  way,  the 
truth,  and  the  life”  bj'  exhibiting  these  heavenly 
graces  not  only  in  matchless  words,  but  also  by  that 
which  is  infinitely  better — a  matchless  life. 

I  know  there  are  men  like  Theodore  Parker  who 
question,  and  at  times,  deny  Christ’s  faultless  charac¬ 
ter.  But  the  challenge  which  the  Master  threw  to  the 
unbelieving  Jews,  “Which  of  you  convicteth  me  of 
sin  ?  ”  has  yet  to  be  accepted  and  overthrown.  Had  Pilate 
been  more  spiritually  minded,  had  he  been  true  to  his 
convictions,  he  would  not  have  stopped  with  the 
words  “  I  find  in  him  no  fault,”  but  would  have  fallen 
at  his  feet,  exclaiming  Thou  art  the  One  in  whom  the 
dreams  of  the  ages  have  their  realization. 

(2)  The  second  principle  which  God  employed 
was  the  incarnation  of  Infinite  L,ove.  To  be  intrinsi¬ 
cally  true,  and  to  live  in  accordance  with  the  dictates 
of  truth,  constitutes  a  grand,  a  noble  life  ;  }^et  it  is 
conceivable  that  the  person  thus  living  so  far  above 
his  fellows,  might  have  little  or  no  interest  in  their 
trials,  temptations  and  failures.  That  gradually  there 
would  grow  a  wide,  and  almost  impassable  chasm 
between  them,  resulting  in  a  cold,  dignified  rectitude 
in  the  good,  and  a  mistrust  and  discouragement  in  the 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


133 


bad.  Consequently,  the  small  influence  possessed  by 
negatively  good  men.  The  pattern  itself  may  be  true, 
but  lacking  the  heart  element  there  is  no  inspiration 
for  those  living  in  the  valley  of  despair.  The  moon 
may  be  very  beautiful,  but  it  requires  the  warm,  genial 
sun  to  draw  the  tiny  particles  of  water  from  their 
silvery  bed  in  the  lake,  up  to  the  dizzy  heights  of  the 
clouds  whence  they  return  to  freshen  and  beautify  the 
earth.  This  is  the  order  of  grace  no  less  than  of 
nature.  Christ’s  trueness  must  not,  nay  can  not  be 
separated  from  his  love  for  his  fellows,  and  because 
the  two  are  indissolubly  united,  men  have  always 
gone  to  him  for  comfort  and  refuge.  His  model  life 
demonstrates  the  existence  of  personal  virtue.  His 
marvelous  condescending  and  persevering  love  for 
those  whose  hearts  are  empty  and  hungry  gives  birth 
to  a  new  and  all-controlling  affection,  which  prompts 
fresh  hope  and  strong  resolution 

But  this  truth  is  not  seen  in  all  its  fullness  until  we 
concentrate  our  gaze  on  the  cross  of  Calvary.  Here 
we  have  the  crowning  testimony  of  the  Master’s  love, 
a  love  so  real,  so  intense,  so  boundless  as  to  lead  him 
to  pray  for  the  forgiveness  of  his  enemies.  Here, 
however,  we  must  not  tarry  ;  for  the  three  prophetic 
days  have  expired,  and  lo,  from  the  cold  arms  of 
Death,  from  the  closely  guarded  sepulchre  comes  the 
crucified  Saviour.  With  the  power  of  God  at  his  com¬ 
mand  what  shall  he  do  ?  Send  the  pestilence  or  the 
earthquake  among  his  enemies  ?  Strike  them  dead  by 
a  flash  from  heaven  ?  Nay,  he  commands  his  disciples 
— and  as  we  read  do  we  not  wonder  at  the  marvelous 
self-control  of  Jesus?  “Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 


134  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com¬ 
manded  you  :  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world.” 

Well  has  Xavier  sung 

“  Thou,  O  my  Jesus,  thou  didst  me 
Upon  the  cross  embrace  ; 

For  me  didst  bear  the  nails  and  spear 
And  manifold  disgrace. 

And  griefs  and  torments  numberless, 

And  sweat  of  agony, 

Yea,  death  itself ;  and  all  for  one 
That  was  thine  enemy. 

Then  why,  O  blessed  Jesus  Christ 
Should  I  not  love  thee  well  ? 

Not  for  the  hope  of  winning  heaven, 

Nor  of  escaping  hell  — 

Not  with  the  hope  of  gaining  aught, 

Not  seeking  a  reward — 

But  as  thyself  hath  loved  me 
O  ever  loving  Lord  ! 

Ev’n  so  I  love  thee  and  will  love, 

And  in  thy  praise  will  sing, 

Solely  because  thou  art  my  God 
And  my  eternal  King.” 

The  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ  not  only  per¬ 
fectly  satisfy  the  divine  veracity  and  justice,  but  they 
also  constitute  the  mightiest  moral  power  which  the 
wisdom  of  God  could  devise.  In  the  light  of  eighteen 
Christian  centuries  we  clearly  see  :  ( i )  That  if  God 
is  to  save  the  race  from  the  bondage  and  penalty  of 
sin  the  conditions  or  terms  of  mercy  must  not  cast  re¬ 
proach  on  his  government.  (2)  The  remedy  must  be 
within  the  reach  of  all.  (3)  It  must  go  to  the  root  of 


AND  MAN’S  MORAIv  NATURE. 


135 


the  disease,  and  thus  work  a  thorough  cure,  and  (4) 
While  it  shall  certainly  exclude  all  spirit  of  boasting 
from  the  redeemed,  the  remedy  must  be  of  such  in¬ 
trinsic  worth  as  to  commend  it  to  the  judgment  and 
conscience  which,  if  accepted,  becomes  so  far  forth  a 
meritorious  act.  Now  I  confidently  assert  that  in  all 
this  universe  there  is,  and  there  can  be  nothing  better 
calculated  to  secure  the  divine  ideal  than  that  which 
God  has  actually  devised;  viz.,  .  Faith — which  worketh 
by  Love — in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Possibly  the  reader 
may  say  that  I  am  safe  in  this  assertion  because  be¬ 
lieving  in  God’s  infinite  wisdom,  that  which  he  has 
done  is  predicated  as  the  wisest.  But  I  assure  him,  it 
is  in  no  such  spirit  of  petitio  principii  that  I  am 
speaking.  Let  him  examine  the  subject  for  himself. 
Study  it  in  all  its  relations  both  to  God  and  man. 
Discard  all  thought  of  what  the  Divine  Mind  has 
done.  Let  him  place  himself  in  imagination  at  the 
beginning  of  human  history  with  a  fallen  race  to  save  ; 
with  the  honor  of  God  to  sustain,  and  then  let  him 
tell  me,  if  he  can,  what  mightier  moral  power  could 
have  been  devised  than  that  which  has  been  employed. 
For  one,  I  confess  that  the  more  I  investigate  the  phi¬ 
losophy  of  salvation,  the  more  deeply  am  I  impressed 
with  the  Divine  Wisdom,  saying  with  Paul,  “  O  the 
depth  of  the  riches,  both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge 
of  God  !  How  unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and 
his  ways  past  finding  out.” 

The  importance  of  Faith,  Scripturally  considered, 
is  seen  in  that  (a)  Without  it  God  can  not  be  pleased. 
‘  ‘  But  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  him  ;  for 
he  that  cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  he  is,  and 
that  he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek 


136  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

him”  (Heb.  xi.  6).  (jb)  Through  Faith  the  soul 
secures  the  remission  of  sin.  “To  him  give  all  the 
prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  shall  receive  the  remission  of  sins’  ’ 
(Acts.  x.  43).  (^)  The  believer  is  justified  by  faith. 
“  Wherefore  the  law  was  our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us 
to  Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  faith”  (Gab 
iii.  24).  (d)  At  the  same  time  God  is  seen  to  be 
just.  “Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitia¬ 
tion  through  faith  in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  right¬ 
eousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past, 
through  the  forbearance  of  God.  To  declare,  I  say, 
at  this  time,  his  righteousness,  that  he  might  be 
just,  and  the  justifier  of  him  which  believeth  in 
Jesus”  (Rom.  iii.  25,  26).  (e)  Faith  leads  to  ac¬ 
tivity.  “  Even  so  faith,  if  it  hath  not  works,  is  dead, 
being  alone”  (Jas.  ii.  17). 

SECTION  III. 

The  Nature  of  Faith. 

Faith  is  of  two  kinds,  viz.,  Objective  and  Subject¬ 
ive.  The  former  refers  to  Jesus  Christ  and  his  gospel. 
He  is  the  object  in  whom,  and  his  doctrines  are  the 
truths  in  which  the  individual  or  subjective  faith  rests. 
Hence  Paul  says,  “But  before  faith  came  we  were 
kept  under  the  law,  shut  up  unto  the  faith  which 
should  afterward  be  revealed.  Wherefore  the  law  was 
our  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  that  we 
might  be  justified  by  faith.  But  after  that  faith  is 
come,  we  are  no  longer  under  a  schoolmaster”  (Gal. 
iii.  23-26).  Here  the  Apostle  speaks  of  a  present 
faith,  which  at  one  time  was  not  •  but  inasmuch  as 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


137 


there  was  a  real  and  accepted  spirit  of  faith  under  the 
Old  Dispensation,  I  understand  these  words  as  referring 
to  objective  faith.  Certainly  this  idea  is  clearly  taught 
in  Jude,  verse  3:  “Beloved,  when  I  gave  all  dili¬ 
gence  to  write  unto  you  of  the  common  salvation,  it 
was  needful  for  me  to  write  unto  you,  and  exhort  you 
that  ye  should  earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  which 
was  once  delivered  unto  the  saints.” 

Subjective  faith  is  that  belief  or  trust  which  is  ex¬ 
ercised  in  the  objective  faith,  or  in  the  Saviour.  It  is 
usually  called  faith,  saving,  or  justifying  faith.  Now 
let  us  turn  our  attention  to  some  definitions  of  faith, 
and  as  we  do  this,  be  kind  enough  to  remember  the  re- 
mark  of  Rev.  Joseph  Cook,  that  in  all  misunderstand¬ 
ings  it  is  wise  to  go  back  to  definitions. 

As  I  understand  it,  subjective  faith  consists  of 
three  things,  viz.,  (1)  A  clear  perception  of  the  truth, 
or  the  person  in  whom  the  subjective  faith  is  to  rest. 
(2)  A  deep  interest  in  the  truth  or  person.  (3)  A 
real  commitment  of  self  to  this  truth  or  person. 

SECTION  iv. 

The  Language  of  Scripture  Presupposes  a?id  Asserts 
that  Faith  which  worketh  by  Love  is  a  Radical 
Condition  of  Salvatio?i. 

Against  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  Monergism  the 
Scriptures  clearly  teach  the  doctrine  of  Synergism. 
Because  (1 )  We  are  commanded  to  love,  and  to  exer¬ 
cise  faith  in  God.  “Hear,  O  Israel,  The  Rord  our 
God  is  one  Rord.  And  thou  shalt  love  the  Rord  thy 
God  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  might  ”  (Deut.  vi.  4,  5).  “Trust  in 


[38  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

the  Lord,  and  do  good  :  so  shalt  thou  dwell  in  the 
land,  and  verily  thou  shalt  be  fed  ”  (Ps.  xxxvii.  3). 
“  Trust  in  the  Lord  with  all  thine  heart ;  and  lean  not 
unto  thine  own  understanding  ”  (Prov.  iii.  5). 
“  Who  is  among  you  that  feareth  the  Lord,  that  obey- 
eth  the  voice  of  his  servant,  that  walketh  in  darkness, 
and  hath  no  light  ?  let  him  trust  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  and  stay  upon  his  God”  (Isa.  1.  10).  “And 
Jesus,  answering,  saith  unto  them,  have  faith  in  God  ” 
(Mark  xi.  22).  To  the  same  spiritual  purpose  are  the 
gospel  injunctions  concerning  faith  in  Christ.  “  Then 
said  they  unto  him,  What  shall  we  do,  that  we  might 
work  the  works  of  God  ?  Jesus  answered  and  said 
unto  them,  This  is  the  work  of  God  that  ye  believe  on 
him  whom  he  hath  sent  ”  (John  vi.  28,  29).  “  And 

this  is  his  commandment,  That  we  should  believe  on 
the  name  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  and  love  one  another, 
as  he  gave  us  commandment”  (1.  John  iii.  23). 

(2)  Salvation  is  conditioned  on  the  Exercise  of 
Faith.  “For  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave 
his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life” 
(John  iii.  16).  “Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He 
that  believeth  on  me  hath  everlasting  life”  (John 
vi.  47).  “And  they  said,  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house  ” 
(Acts  xvi.  31 ).  “  For  the  Scripture  saith,  Whosoever 

believeth  on  him  shall  not  be  ashamed  ”  (Rom.  x.  1 1). 
(3)  Faith  is  so  much  a  personal  choice  that  it  is  said 
to  belong  to  the  individual  by  whom  it  is  exercised. 
“  But  Jesus  turned  him  about ;  and  when  he  saw  her, 
he  said,  Daughter,  be  of  good  comfort  ;  thy  faith  hath 
made  thee  whole  ”  (Matt.  ix.  22).  “  And  Jesus  said 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


139 


unto  him,  Go  thy  way  ;  thy  faith  hath  made  thee 
whole.  And  immediately  he  received  his  sight,  and 
followed  Jesus  in  the  way  ”  (Mark  x.  52).  To  the 
woman  who  was  a  sinner,  and  yet  who  “  loved  much,” 
the  Master  said,  “  Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee  ;  go  in 
peace  ”  (Luke  vii.  50).  Of  the  ten  lepers  who  were 
healed,  only  one  returned  to  the  Saviour  to  give  thanks, 
to  whom  he  said,  “  Arise,  go  thy  way  ;  thy  faith  hath 
made  thee  whole  ”  (xvii.  19).  “  For  what  saith  the 

Scripture  ?  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  unto  him  for  righteousness  ”  (Rom.  iv.  3). 
What  was  counted  unto  Abraham  for  righteousness  ? 
Faith.  Whose  faith  ?  His  own. 

In  this  connection  the  reader  may  profitably  notice 
the  eleventh  chapter  of  Hebrews  which  is  devoted  to 
the  triumphs  of  faith.  While  it  is  true  that  the  writer 
had  no  intention  of  unduly  magnifying  the  individual 
so  as  to  allow  any  room  for  boasting,  yet  beyond  all 
controversy,  each  person’s  faith  is  designated  as  his 
own  ;  moreover  because  faith  is  a  moral  quality — a 
right  attitude  of  the  soul — those  who  are  here  enum¬ 
erated  are  deservedly  praised.  Such  is  our  moral 
nature,  that  when  we  do  right  a  sense  of  approval— of 
complacency  spontaneously  arises.  So  far  forth  this 
intrinsically  belongs  to  the  person  whose  conscience 
says,  You  have  done  right.  Hence  “  By  faith  Abel 
offered  unto  God  a  more  excellent  sacrifice  than  Cain, 
by  which  he  obtained  witness  that  he  was  righteous, 
God  testifying  of  his  gifts  ;  and  by  it  he  being  dead 
yet  speaketh”  (v.  5).  Gregory  the  Great,  cited  by 
Delitzsch,  says,  “  All  that  is  given  to  God,  is  weighed 
according  to  the  disposition  of  its  giver  :  whence  it  is 
written,  ‘  God  had  regard  to  Abel,  and  to  his  gifts, 


140  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

but  had  no  regard  to  Cain  and  his  gifts.’  The  Script¬ 
ure  does  not  say,  ‘  He  regarded  the  gifts  of  Abel,  and 
did  not  regard  the  gifts  of  Cain,’  but  first  says,  that 
‘He  regarded  Abel,’  and  then  adds,  ‘and  his  gifts.’ 
So  we  see  that  it  was  not  the  gifts  which  made  Abel 
to  be  acceptable,  but  Abel  who  made  the  gifts  to  be 
so.” 

(4)  God’s  work  is  advanced  or  hindered  in  the 
exact  proportion  as  Faith  is  or  is  not  exercised.  Jesus 
marvelled  at  the  faith  of  the  centurion,  and  said,  ‘‘Go 
thy  way  ;  and  as  thou  hast  believed,  so  be  it  done 
unto  thee”  (Matt.  viii.  13).  To  the  two  blind  men 
the  Master  puts  the  searching  question  ‘‘Believe  ye 
that  I  am  able  to  do  this  ?  ’  ’  Receiving  an  affirmative 
answer,  he  said,  “  According  to  your  faith  be  it  unto 
you”  (Matt.  ix.  29).  To  Jairus,  Christ  said,  ‘‘Be 
not  afraid,  only  believe”  (Mark  v.  36).  To  the 
father  who  had  a  son  with  a  dumb  spirit,  and  who  was 
bordering  on  unbelief,  Jesus  said,  “  If  thou  canst  be¬ 
lieve,  all  things  are  possible  to  him  that  believeth” 
(Mark  ix.  23).  True,  these  passages  refer  to  physi¬ 
cal  healing  ;  but  if  a  moral  state  or  attitude  of  the 
mind  is  required  to  heal  a  physical  malady,  shall  any¬ 
thing  less  be  required  for  the  disease  of  the  soul  ? 
Moreover,  let  us  not  forget  that  in  all  the  gracious 
works  of  Jesus  he  sought  to  impress  the  mind  that  he 
who  could  heal  the  body,  could,  and  if  he  were  allowed, 
would  heal  the  soul.  To  the  disciples  all  things  were 
conditioned  on  the  exercise  of  faith.  ‘‘Therefore  I 
say  unto  you,  What  things  soever  ye  desire,  when  ye 
pray,  believe  that  ye  receive  them,  and  ye  shall  have 
them”  (Mark  xi.  24).  (5)  Unbelief,  the  great  sin, 

and  that  which  absolutely  deters  God  from  saving. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  I4I 

This  is  susceptible  of  several  presentations;  viz.,  ( a ) 
The  disciples  are  mildly  rebuked  for  not  having  faith. 
Peter’s  unbelief  while  walking  on  the  water  is  re¬ 
proved  by  the  Master,  saying,  “  O  thou  of  little  faith, 
wherefore  didst  thou  doubt?”  (Matt.  xiv.  31).  The 
father  of  the  lunatic  son  must  have  been  surprised  at 
the  failure  of  the  disciples  to  cast  out  the  evil  spirit. 
When  Jesus  heard  of  it  he  said,  “  O  faithless  and  per¬ 
verse  generation,  how  long  shall  I  be  with  3^011  ?  how 
long  shall  I  suffer  you  ?  ”  “  Then  came  the  disciples 

to  Jesus  apart,  and  said,  Why  could  not  we  cast  him 
out?  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Because  of  your 
unbelief;  for  verity  I  say  unto  you,  If  ye  have  faith 
as  a  grain  of  mustard  seed,  ye  shall  say  unto  this 
mountain,  Remove  hence  to  yonder  place ;  and  it 
shall  remove  :  and  nothing  shall  be  impossible  unto 
you”  (Matt.  xvii.  17,  19,  20).  The  foolish  fears  ot 
the  disciples  while  in  the  storm  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
are  kindly  rebuked  by  the  Master,  who  ‘  ‘  said  unto 
them,  Why  are  ye  so  fearful  ?  how  is  it  that  ye  have 
no  faith”  (Mark  iv.  40)  ?  While  Jesus  is  teaching 
the  nature  of  human  forgiveness,  the  apostles  ex¬ 
claimed,  “Iyord  increase  our  faith.”  Doubtless  this 
was  a  very  sincere  and  laudable  desire  :  but  so  far 
from  the  Master  granting  it  in  any  positive  sense — he 
proceeds  to  show  them  that  it  is  their  duty  to  have 
faith  (Duke  xviii.  3-10).  Thomas  was  called 
“faithless”  because  he  would  not  believe  without 
seeing  and  feeling  the  nail-prints :  nor  was  he  as 
blessed  as  they  who  had  not  seen,  and  yet  had  be¬ 
lieved.  (John  xx.  25,  27,  29.)  (£)  We  dre  warned 

against  unbelief.  “Take  heed,  brethren,  lest  there 
be  in  any  of  you  an  evil  heart  of  unbelief,  in  depart- 


142  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

ing  from  the  living  God.”  “Let  us  therefore  fear, 
lest,  a  promise  being  left  us  of  entering  into  his  rest, 
any  of  you  should  seem  to  come  short  of  it.”  “  Let 
us  labor  therefore  to  enter  into  that  rest,  lest  any  man 
fall  after  the  same  example  of  unbelief”  (Heb.  iii. 
12;  iv.  1,11).  (V)  God’s  Ancient  People  lost  through 

unbelief.  “  Thou  wilt  say  then,  The  branches  were 
broken  off,  that  I  might  be  graffed  in.  Well ;  because 
of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest 
by  faith.  Be  not  highminded,  but  fear :  For  if  God 
spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take  heed  lest  he  also 
spare  not  thee”  (Rom.  xi.  19-21).  “But  with  whom 
was  he  grieved  forty  years  ?  was  it  not  with  them 
that  had  sinned,  whose  carcasses  fell  in  the  wilderness  ? 
And  to  whom  sware  he  that  they  should  not  enter  into 
his  rest,  but  to  them  that  believed  not  ?  So  we  see 
that  they  could  not  enter  in  because  of  unbelief” 
(Heb.  iii.  17-19).  “For  unto  us  was  the  gospel 
preached,  as  well  as  unto  them  ;  but  the  word  preached 
did  not  profit  them,  not  being  mixed  with  faith  in 
them  that  heard  it.”  “  Seeing  therefore  it  remaineth 
that  some  must  enter  therein,  and  they  to  whom  it 
was  first  preached  entered  not  in  because  of  unbelief” 
(iv.  2,  6).  “Therefore  we  ought  to  give  the  more 
earnest  heed  to  the  things  which  we  have  heard,  lest 
at  any  time  we  should  let  them  slip.  For  if  the  word 
spoken  by  angels  was  steadfast,  and  every  transgres¬ 
sion  and  disobedience  received  a  just  recompense  of 
reward  ;  How  shall  we  escape,  if  we  neglect  so  great 
salvation  ;  which  at  the  first  began  to  be  spoken  by 
the  Lord,  and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them  that 
heard  him  ”  (ii.  1-3).  (d)  The  same  condemnation 

rested  on  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ.  “  He  that 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


H3 


believetli  on  him  is  not  condemned  :  but  he  that  be- 
lieveth  not  is  condemned  already,  because  he  hath  not 
believed  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of 
God”  (John  iii.  18).  “I  said  therefore  unto  you, 
that  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins  :  for  if  ye  believe  not 
that  I  am  he,  ye  shall  die  in  your  sins  ”  (viii.  24). 
Speaking  of  the  Holy  Spirit  the  Master  said,  “And 
when  he  is  come,  he  will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and 
of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment.”  Why  of  sin? 
“  Because  they  believe  not  on  me  ”  (xvi.  8,  9).  The 
dying  Stephen  justly  said,  “Ye  stiffnecked  and  uncir¬ 
cumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always  resist  the 
Holy  Ghost :  as  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye”  (Acts 
vii.  51).  (e)  The  Saviour  was  deterred  by  unbelief. 

“And  he  could  there  do  no  mighty  work,  save  that 
he  laid  his  hands  upon  a  few  sick  folk,  and  healed 
them.  And  he  marvelled  because  of  their  unbelief” 
(Mark  vi.  5,  6).  The  only  escape  possible  to  the  Cal¬ 
vinist  is  to  assert  that  when  men  do  not  believe,  God 
never  intended  they  should.  But  as  we  have  seen  in 
a  previous  chapter  this  is  not  tenable  ;  not  only  be¬ 
cause  the  language  of  the  Bible  unequivocally  con¬ 
demns  it,  but  also  because  it  irresistibly  leads  to  the 
charge  of  insincerity  on  the  part  of  God.  Salvation 
is  conditional.  Faith  in  the  divine  promises  is  the 
condition  which  man  must  fulfill  before  God  can  save. 

SECTION  v. 

How  is  Faith  Obtained  f  How  Does  it  Come  f 

The  Bible  answers  this  question  by  asserting  that 
faith  comes  by  hearing,  reading,  and  meditating  upon 
the  Word.  “So  then  faith  cometh  by  hearing,  and 
hearing  by  the  word  of  God  ”  (Rom. x.  17).  “Search 


144  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

the  scriptures  ;  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal 
life:  and  they  are  they  which  testify  of  me”  (John 
v.  39).  “  And  many  other  signs  truly  did  Jesus  in 

the  presence  of  his  disciples,  which  are  not  written 
in  this  book.  But  these  are  written  that  ye  might 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God;  and 
that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his  name  ” 
(xx.  30,  31).  It  comes  by  witnessing  miraculous 
events.  Concerning  the  death  of  Lazarus,  the  Master 
said  to  the  disciples,  “  And  I  am  glad  for  your  sakes 
that  I  was  not  there,  to  the  intent  ye  may  believe  ; 
nevertheless  let  us  go  unto  him”  (xi.  15).  Thomas 
was  doubting  until  he  saw  the  prints  of  the  nails  : 
hence,  seeing  was  believing  :  therefore  Jesus  said  unto 
him,  “  Thomas,  because  thou  hast  seen  me,  thou  hast 
believed  :  blessed  are  they  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet 
have  believed  ”  (John  xx.  29).  It  may  be  safely  as¬ 
serted  that  all  the  mighty  works  of  Jesus  were  intended 
to  substantiate  his  claims  of  Messiahship  :  or,  to  give 
such  evidence  of  the  truthfulness  of  his  claims  that 
men  should  have  no  excuse  for  not  believing,  or  exer¬ 
cising  faith.  Hence,  when  speaking  to  Philip,  he 
says,  “  Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  in  me  :  or  else  believe  me  for  the  very  works’ 
sake”  (xiv.  11).  Again,  speaking  of  the  unbeliev¬ 
ing  Jews,  he  says  to  the  disciples,  “  If  I  had  not  done 
among  them  the  works  which  none  other  man  did, 
they  had  not  had  sin  :  but  now  have  they  both  seen 
and  hated  both  me  and  my  Father”  (xv.  24).  “If 
I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not. 
But  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the 
works  :  that  ye  may  know  and  believe  that  the  Father 
is  in  me,  and  I  in  him  ”  (x.  37,  38). 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


H5 


It  follows  from  the  above  that  a  person’s  faith  may 
be  increased,  or  made  stronger,  by  greater  light,  a 
clearer  understanding  of  the  Word  ;  or  by  a  more 
vivid  appreciation  of  the  goodness  and  power  of  God 
as  seen  in  Jesus  Christ.  In  this  sense  the  disciples 
were  right — though  they  ought  to  have  had  more  faith 
— when  they  said  to  the  Lord,  “  Increase  our  faith.” 
As  we  have  seen  he  did  increase  their  faith  at  the  res¬ 
urrection  of  Lazarus.  Indeed,  to  them,  every  day’s 
experience  was  a  new  revelation  of  his  infinite  love 
and  power,  and  hence,  a  continual  confirmation  of 
their  faith.  Yet,  so  far  from  being  directly  given  by 
God,  it  depended  upon  them,  whether  they  would  or 
would  not  improve  their  opportunities.  Thus,  subjec¬ 
tive,  or  saving  faith  is  man’s  part  in  the  saving  of  the 
soul  :  Not  without  God’s  aid,  however  ;  for  were  it 
not  for  the  Holy  Spirit  convicting  men  of,  and  draw¬ 
ing  them  away  from  their  sins  to  the  cross  of  Calvary, 
none  would  be  saved.  But  at  the  same  time  I  main¬ 
tain  that  the  yielding  to  the  divine  influences,  the  ex¬ 
ercising  of  faith  in  the  Saviour  is  man’s  act,  and  not 
God’s  :  that  when  so  exercised  it  is  really,  and  hence 
ought  to  be,  and  in  the  Scriptures  is,  called  my  faith  : 
that  the  soul  has  the  power  to,  and  in  many  cases, 
actually  does,  refuse  to  believe,  against  the  abundant 
evidence  offered  by  God,  and  made  additionally  strong 
by  the  divine  Spirit,  and  thus  is  lost — contrary  to  the 
sincere  wish  and  earnest  endeavors  of  God.  “He 
came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not. 
But  as  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power 
to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe 
on  his  name.  Which  were  born  not  of  blood,  nor  of 
the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of 


146  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

God”  (John  i.  11-13).  “The  power  contemplated 
seems  not  to  be  a  new  moral  ability  by  means  of  which 
alone  the  recipient  could  exercise  saving  faith,  for  the 
receiving  of  him  by  faith  precedes  in  the  order  of  nature 
this  blessing  of  sonship  toward  God.  To  such  as  had 
received  him,  he  gave  this  right  or  privilege.”1 

Says  Alford,  “  .  .  .  .  as  many  as  recognized  him 
as  that  which  he  was  the  Word  of  God  and  Tight  of 
men.”  “  For  as  the  words  received  and  to  them  that 
believe,  correspond  to  one  another,  and  denote  the 
cause  ;  so  the  effect  is  denoted  in  the  words  to  become 
sons,  and  is  further  explained  in  this  verse.”  2 

Speaking  of  this  spiritual  reception,  Neander  says, 
“  The  appearance  of  Messiah  will  cause  a  sifting  of 
the  Theocratic  people.  This  presupposes  that  he  will 
not  overturn  all  enemies  and  set  up  his  kingdom  at 
once  by  the  miraculous  power  of  God,  but  will  mani¬ 
fest  himself  in  such  a  form  that  those  whose  hearts 
are  prepared  for  his  coming  will  recognize  him  as 
Messiah.”  3 


SECTION  vi. 

Objectio?is  Considered. 

It  is  now  in  order  to  consider  the  objections  against 
the  position  herein  maintained.  It  is  claimed  :  I. 
That  the  natural  man  is  dead  in  sin,  so  that  he  can  not 
possibly  act,  or  co-operate  with  God.  Dr.  Thomas 
H.  Skinner  says,  “  As  Christ  in  his  body  was  dead 
and  buried,  was  raised  from  the  sepulchre  by  the  ex¬ 
ceeding  greatness  of  God’s  power,  so  the  sinner  is 


1  Cowles.  Commentary. 

2  Bengel’s  “Gnomon  of  the  New  Testament.  ” 

3  “  Life  of  Christ,”  p.  54. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE- 


H7 


dead  and  buried  in  the  grave  of  sin,  and  his  resurrec¬ 
tion  therefrom  is  by  that  very  same  power  exerted  in 
him.”  4  Rev.  Alvan  Tobey  declares,  “  In  regenera¬ 
tion  men  are  wholly  passive  ;  as  they  also  are  in  the 
first  moment  of  conversion,  but  by  it  become  active. 
Regeneration  is  an  irresistible  act  of  God’s  grace,  no 
more  resistance  can  be  made  to  it,  than  there  could  be 
by  the  first  matter  in  its  creation,  or  by  a  dead  man  in 
his  resurrection.  ’  ’  5  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  thinks  that  sin¬ 
ners  are  as  impotent  as  the  man  with  a  withered  arm, 
or  the  one  at  the  pool  of  Betliesda.  Thus,  in  refuting 
the  doctrine  of  the  Romanists,  he  says,  ‘‘No  one  de¬ 
nies  that  the  man  in  the  synagogue  co-operated  in 
stretching  out  his  withered  arm,  or  that  the  impotent 
one  at  the  pool  was  active  in  obeying  the  command  of 
Christ  ‘  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  unto  thine 
house-’  ....  So  Protestants  do  not  deny  that  the 
soul  is  active  in  conversion  ;  that  the  ‘ Arbitrium  a 
Deo  motum  ’  freely  asserts  ;  but  they  do  deny  that  the 
sinner  is  active  and  co-operating  in  the  production  of 
the  new  life  in  the  exercise  of  which  the  sinner  turns 
to  God.”  Again  in  speaking  of,  and  indorsing  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  he  says,  “  .  .  .  .  the  sinner 
can  in  no  way  prepare  himself  to  be  the  subject  of  this 
grace,  he  can  not  merit  it,  nor  can  he  co-operate  with  it. 
Regeneration  is  exclusively  .the  work  of  the  Spirit,  in 
which  man  is  the  subject  and  not  the  agent  :  .  .  .  . 
therefore  it  depends  on  God,  and  not  on  man,  who  are, 
and  who  are  not,  to  be  made  partakers  of  eternal 
life.”6 


4  “  Presby.  Quarterly,”  1873,  p.  116. 

5  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  Vol.  XVIII.,  p.  382. 

6  “Theology.”  Vol.  II.,  pp.  718,  720. 


148  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

Reversing  the  order  of  thought,  let  us  reconsider 
the  miracles  of  healing,  which,  it  is  claimed,  are  fair 
illustrations  of  the  workings  of  grace.  In  the  case  of 
the  man  with  a  withered  hand,  it  is  to  be  frankly  con¬ 
fessed  that  so  far  as  the  command  of  the  Master  is 
concerned,  “Stretch  forth  thine  hand,”  it  was,  to  the 
man,  a  physical  impossibility.  This  is  seen  at  a  glance, 
otherwise,  there  was  no  need  of  seeking  the  aid  of 
Christ.  But  back  of  the  physical  impossibility  was  the 
will,  or  the  disposition  of  the  man  which  is  a  most  im¬ 
portant  factor  in  the  healing.  As  we  have  seen, 
Christ  invariably  demanded  faith  as  the  condition  of 
healing  :  because  it  is  not  mentioned  here,  we  are  not 
to  suppose  that  it  was  not  required.  Hence  as  the 
man  earnestly  desired  to  be  healed,  his  will  did  co¬ 
operate  with  the  command,  and  hence  the  necessary 
strength  was  received.  Had  he  refused  to  exercise 
faith,  there  is  no  rational  doubt  that  he  would  have 
remained  unhealed.  Now  so  far  as  this  illustrates  the 
saving  of  the  soul,  it  is  unmistakably  in  favor  of  the 
doctrine  for  which  I  am  contending.  No  man  can  be 
saved  of  himself :  otherwise,  why  should  God  provide 
a  Saviour  ?  But  man,  lost  as  he  is,  may  have  a  desire 
to  be  saved,  a  disposition  to  do  what  is  told  him,  and 
hence,  under  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he 
wills  to  believe,  he  exercises  faith  in  the  crucified 
Saviour,  and  is  saved.  Here  I  gladly  quote  the  words 
of  Dr.  Barnes,  who,  although  a  Calvinist,  has  un¬ 
qualifiedly  indorsed  the  Arminian  doctrine  that  God 
saves  according  to  man’s  attitude.  “  The  man  might 
have  said  that  he  had  no  strength  :  that  it  was  a  thing 
which  he  could  not  do.  Yet,  being  commanded,  it 
was  his  duty  to  obey.  He  did  so,  and  was  healed. 


■ 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE. 


149 


So  the  sinner.  It  is  his  duty  to  obey  whatever  God 
commands.  He  will  give  strength  to  those  who 
attempt  to  do  his  will.  It  is  not  right  to  plead,  when 
God  commands  us  to  do  a  thing,  that  we  have  no 
strength.  God  will  give  us  strength,  if  there  is  a  dis¬ 
position  to  obey.  Please  mark  this.  “  God  will  give 
us  strength  if  there  is  a  disposition  to  obey.”  If  Cal¬ 
vinism  be  correct,  there  is  no  “if”  about  it:  man 
has  no  disposition  ;  can  have  no  disposition  toward 
God  until  it  is  irresistibly  conferred  upon  him,  put 
within  him,  which  of  course  prompts  him  to  obey. 
This  one  little  word  “if”  which  Dr.  Barnes  has  so 
unconsciously  used  is  the  key  to  the  whole  subject. 
The  Calvinists  would  banish  it  from  theology,  but 
like  Banquo’s  ghost,  it  will  not  down. 

This  leads  to  the  consideration  of  the  question,  Is 
man’s  moral  nature  literally  dead  ?  The  Epistle  of 
Paul  to  the  Ephesians  affords,  perhaps,  the  most 
plausible  texts  to  support  the  doctrine  that  man  is 
passive  in  regeneration.  “And  you  hath  he  quick¬ 
ened  wTho  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.  Even 
when  we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath  he  quickened  us 
together  with  Christ,  by  grace  ye  are  saved” 
(»•  1,  5)- 

In  the  Bible  the  words  “dead,”  “death”  and 
“die”  are  variously  used.  At  times  death  is  predi¬ 
cated  of  the  bodily  life,  as  “  Eazarus  is  dead  ”  ;  again 
it  is  affirmed  of  the  soul.  “The  soul  that  sinneth, 
it  shall  die.  ”  “  Brethren,  if  any  of  you  do  err  from  the 

truth,  and  one  convert  him,  Eet  him  know,  that  he 
which  converteth  the  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way 
shall  save  a  soul  from  death,  and  shall  hide  a  multi¬ 
tude  of  sins  ”  (James  t.  19,  20).  In  the  first  pas- 


T50  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

sage  cited,  we  understand  by  the  death  of  Lazarus 
that  he  had  absolutely  lost  his  bodily  life  :  conse¬ 
quently  he  was  entirely  passive  in  his  resurrection. 
Now  if  this  is  the  meaning  which  is  fairly  demanded 
in  other  passages  where  death  is  affirmed  of  the 
spiritual  nature,  I  have  nothing  to  say.  The  Calvin¬ 
ist  is  right,  and  I  can  only  bow  in  silence  to  that  which 
seems  to  me  extremely  perplexing.  But  is  this  inter¬ 
pretation  demanded  ?  I  not  only  think  that  it  is  not, 
but  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  upon  investigation  it  will 
be  found  utterly  incongruous. 

Death,  whether  physical  or  spiritual,  is  the  oppo¬ 
site  of  life.  Spiritual  life  is  communion  with  God  : 
spiritual  death  takes  place  the  moment  that  commun¬ 
ion  ceases,  hence,  spiritual  death  is  alienation  from 
God  ;  a  perversion  of  the  moral  powers  ;  a  refusal  to 
use  them  in  the  service  and  for  the  glory  of  God.  But 
the  non-use  of  a  faculty  does  not  imply  its  non-exist¬ 
ence.  Consequently  the  word  “  dead  ”  in  the  passages 
under  consideration  is  to  be  understood  as  teaching 
the  moral  perversity  of  men,  the  non-recognition  of  the 
claims  of  God,  or  the  bondage  of  sin  in  which  men  are 
living.  That  the  term  “  dead  ”  can  not  be  as  literally 
applied  to  the  moral  as  to  the  physical  nature  of  man  is 
evident,  because  (i)  Men  are  addressed  as  though  they 
were  capable  of  co-operating  with  God.  This  has 
been  clearly  shown  by  the  many  passages  previously 
considered  in  this  chapter.  Of  necessity  there  can  be 
no  condition  if  there  is  no  co-operation.  But  as  Dr. 
Barnes  confesses  there  is  a  condition  :  hence  there  are 
two  persons. 

The  following  passages  clearly  assert  that  man 
must  do  his  part  in  securing  divine  pardon.  The 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  15I 

rebellious  Israelites  were  to  remember  the  mercy  of 
God  and  earnestly  seek  him  :  for  “  if-from  thence  thou 
shalt  seek  the  Lord  thy  God,  thou  shalt  find  him,  if 
thou  seek  him  with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy 
soul”  (Deut.  iv.  29).  Speaking  through  the  “Min¬ 
strel  sublime  ”  God  says,  “  Wash  ye,  make  you  clean  ; 
put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  mine 
eyes  :  cease  to  do  evil  ;  learn  to  do  well :  seek  judg¬ 
ment,  relieve  the  oppressed,  judge  the  fatherless,  plead 
for  the  widow  ”  (Isa.  i.  16,  17). 

According  to  Jeremiah  God  will  punish  or  forgive 
in  the  exact  proportion  as  the  people  correct  their 
ways.  “Therefore  now  amend  your  ways,  and  your 
doings,  and  obey  the  voice  of  the  Lord  your  God  ;  and 
the  Lord  will  repent  him  of  the  evil  that  he  hath  pro¬ 
nounced  against  you  ”  (xxvi.  13).  From  Ezekiel  we 
learn  that  the  wicked  are  as  active,  that  they  have  as 
much  power  to  turn  as  the  righteous.  “When  a 
righteous  man  turneth  away  from  his  righteousness, 
and  committeth  iniquity,  and  dieth  in  them  ;  for  his 
iniquity  that  he  hath  done  shall  he  die.  Again,  when 
the  wicked  man  turneth  away  from  his  wickedness 
that  he  hath  committed,  and  doeth  that  which  is  law¬ 
ful  and  right,  he  shall  save  his  soul  alive.  Because  he 
considereth,  and  turneth  away  from  all  his  transgres¬ 
sions  that  he  hath  committed,  he  shall  surely  live,  he 
shall  not  die”  (xviii.  26-28).  Janies  gives  good  advice 
when  he  says  “  Draw  nigh  to  God,  and  he  will  draw 
nigh  to  you.  Cleanse  your  hands,  ye  sinners,  and 
purify  your  hearts,  ye  double  minded.  Humble  your¬ 
selves  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  and  he  shall  lift  you 
up”  (iv.  8,  10).  In  vain  does  Dr.  Hodge  say  that 
these  and  other  passages  imply  “  nothing  more  than 


152  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

the  authoritative  declaration  of  what  is  obligatory 
upon  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed.”  I  venture  the 
assertion  that  the  same  language  used  among  men 
would  be  universally  understood  as  implying,  not  only 
obligation,  but  also  some  degree  of  power  to  fulfill  the 
obligation.  The  Bible  is  written  in  a  plain,  common- 
sense  way,  and  it  is  a  fact  capable  of  verification  that 
in  all  ages  the  great  mass  of  men  have  so  understood 
these  declarations.  As  a  matter  of  historic  interest 
the  view  condemned  by  Dr.  Hodge  was  quite  univer¬ 
sally  accepted  by  the  Christian  Church  prior  to  the 
time  of  Augustine.  Hagenbach  testifies  as  follows- 
“  Freedom  and  immortality  are  those  traits  of  the 
human  mind  in  which  is  manifested  the  image  of  God. 
Such  was  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  Church,  con¬ 
firmed  by  the  general  Christian  consciousness.  All 
the  Greek  fathers,  as  well  as  the  apologists,  Justin, 
Tatian,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus,  •  and  the  Latin 
author,  Minutius  Felix,  also  the  theologians  of  the 
Alexandrian  school,  Clement  and  Origen,  exalt  the 
autonomy,  self-determination  of  the  human  soul.  .  .  . 
None  but  heretics  ventured  to  maintain  that  man  is 
subject  to  another  influence  than  himself.”  1  Dr. 
Hodge  frequently  seeks  to  support  his  doctrines  by  an 
appeal  to  the  past  ;  in  this  case  the  verdict  is  against 
him.  Men  have  thought  and  will  continue  to  think, 
that  when  the  Bible  says  “  Cease  to  do  evil,”  “  Draw 
nigh  to  God,”'  “Wash  you,  make  you  clean  ;  put  away 
the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  mine  eyes,”  it  pre¬ 
supposes  that  those  to  whom  the  words  are  addressed 
have  the  power  thus  to  do.  (2)  The  spiritual  nature 
of  man  is  not  literally  dead,  or  actually  lost,  because  if 


1  “  History  of  Doctrine.”  Vol.  I.,  p.  155. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


153 


this  were  so,  there  would  be  no  basis  for  a  spiritual 
recovery.  Dr.  Hodge  truly  says  “The  essential  attri¬ 
butes  of  a  spirit  are  reason,  conscience  and  will.  A 
spirit  is  a  rational,  moral,  and  therefore  also  a  free 
agent.’’ 2  It  follows  therefore,  that  if  these  attributes 
which  are  essential  to  a  spirit  should  be  lost,  if  they 
are  dead — like  the  body  at  the  termination  of  the  phys¬ 
ical  life — the  spirit  has  lost  its  essential  characteristics. 
Through  what  avenues  then  does  spiritual  truth  reach 
the  soul  ?  Can  wre  know  anything  of  God  ?  Mani¬ 
festly  not ;  for  as  Dr.  Hodge  admits,  “  This  conformity 
of  nature  between  man  and  God  is  not  only  the  dis¬ 
tinguishing  prerogative  of  humanity,  so  far  as  earthly 
creatures  are  concerned,  but  it  is  also  the  necessary 
condition  of  our  capacity  to  know  God,  and  therefore 
the  foundation  of  our  religious  nature.  3 

But  all  men  have  or  have  not  a  religious  nature. 
If  the  unregenerate  have  not  a  religious  nature  then 
God,  in  restoring  that  which  is  lost  must  act  immedi¬ 
ately  upon  the  personality.  This  Dr.  Hodge  seems  to 
imply  when  he  says  of  God,“  He  operates  when,  where 
and  how  he  sees  fit,  without  the  intervention  of  any 
second  cause.  By  a  word,  or  a  volition,  raising  the 
spiritually  dead,  opening  the  eyes  of  the  heart,  renew¬ 
ing  the  will,  communicating  what  the  Scriptures  call 
a  new  nature.”  4 

If  we  have  spiritual  nature  before  regeneration, 
how  is  it  possible  for  the  soul  to  be  as  literally  dead 
as  the  body  ?  When  the  body  dies,  the  work  of  dis¬ 
integration  begins.  If  not  arrested  the  body  soon 


2  “  Systematic  Theology.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  97- 

3  Ibid. 

4  “  Theology.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  694. 


154  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

disappears.  But  if  the  spiritual  nature  of  man  is  im¬ 
perishable,  then  the  soul  can  not  be  dead  ;  and  hence 
the  only  tenable  conclusion  is  that  which  I  previously 
affirmed,  viz.,  that  by  spiritual  death  is  meant  the  per¬ 
version  of  man’s  moral  powers  ;  his  affections  are  mis¬ 
placed,  his  judgment  and  conscience — to  a  greater  or 
less  degree — say  he  ought  to  love  God,  but  his  will 
refuses  to  coincide.  Change  the  ruling  purpose  and 
the  man  will  become  a  Christian. 

When  Dr.  Hodge  combats  the  doctrine  of  annihi¬ 
lation,  the  view  for  which  I  am  contending  is  not  only 
recognized,  but,  as  it  seems  to  me,  heartily  accepted  : 
he  says,  “The  word  life  means  one  thing  when  used 
of  plants,  another  when  used  of  animals,  and  another 
when  spoken  of  in  reference  to  the  soul  of  man.  The 
death  of  a  plant  is  one  thing,  the  death  of  an  immor¬ 
tal  soul  is  something  entirely  different.”  Speaking  of 
life,  he  says,  “The  word,  when  used  of  the  soul  of 
man,  means  not  only  conscious  being,  but  a  normal 
state  of  being  in  the  likeness,  fellowship,  and  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  God.  And  in  like  manner  the  word  death, 
when  spoken  of  the  soul,  means  alienation  or  separa¬ 
tion  from  God.”  Precisely  so.  But  is  a  man  who  is 
alienated  from  God  as  really  dead,  as  truly  passive  as 
when  his  body  dies  ?  Moreover,  the  unconscious  con¬ 
cession  that  “  life”  “  when  used  of  the  soul  of  man, 
means  ....  a  normal  state  of  being  in  the  likeness 
.  ...  of  God,”  signifies  that  a  sinful  soul  is  in  an 
abnormal  state.  But  does  abnormal  mean  as  passive 
as  a  dead  body  ? 

This  conclusion  is  susceptible  of  a  different  verifi¬ 
cation.  If,  as  Dr.  Hodge  affirms,  “  Spiritual  death  is 
as  real  as  corporal  death,”  then  when  God  restores 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE). 


155 


that  which  is  dead — that  which  is  lost — something  has 
been  added  to  the  soul.  To  deny  this  is  to  say  that 
the  soul  has  lost  nothing — in  the  proper  sense  of  that 
term — which  is  the  very  thing  for  which  I  am  con¬ 
tending. 

But,  if  I  mistake  not,  Dr.  Hodge  does  deny  that 
anything  is  added  to  the  soul  :  he  says,  “  Regeneration 
does  not  consist  in  a  change  in  any  one  of  the  facul¬ 
ties  of  the  soul,  whether  the  sensibility,  or  the  will,  or 
the  intellect.”  Again,  it  is  “not  a  change  of  the 
higher,  as  distinguished  from  the  lower  powers  of 
the  soul.”  “  Nor  any  change  in  the  substance  of  the 
soul.”  5 

If  regeneration  does  not  change  the  soul’s  sub¬ 
stance,  nor  the  higher,  nor  the  lower  powers,  nor  any 
of  the  faculties,  then  so  far  forth  as  the  spiritual  nat¬ 
ure  is  concerned  it  remains  the  same  as  before.  Con¬ 
sequently  so  far  as  its  real  nature  is  concerned,  the 
soul  has  not  lost  anything,  and  therefore,  is  not,  and 
can  not  be  said  to  be  as  literally  dead  as  the  body  when 
life  departs.  Or,  quoting  the  words  of  Dr.  Hodge, 

‘  ‘  as  real  as  corporeal  death.  ’  ’  Cowles  admirably  says, 
“  .  .  .  .  dead,  not  in  the  sense  of  having  no  mind, 
but  of  having  a  bad  mind — not  of  being  without 
moral  sense,  but  of  having  perverted  their  moral 
sense  and  crushed  it  down.” 

Dr.  Hodge  is  entirely  too  literal  in  his  idea  of 
spiritual  death,  for  (3)  The  Scriptures  affirm  that  man 
has  not  utterly  lost  his  spiritual  sense.  Paul  declares 
that  the  heathen  have  some  sense  of  right  and  wrong, 
and  at  times  are  excused  by  their  consciences.  “  Tor 
when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do  by  nat- 


5  “Theology.”  Vol.  III.,  pp.  15,  17,  32. 


156  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


ure  the  things  contained  in  the  law,  these,  having  not 
the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves.  Which  shew  the 
work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  con¬ 
science  also  bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts  the 
meanwhile  accusing  or  else  excusing  one  another” 
(Rom.  ii.  14,  15).  The  fall  did  not  deprive  man  of  some 
likeness  to  God,  for  the  prohibition  against  shedding 
man’s  blood  is  based  on  the  fact  that  he  is  yet  in  the 
divine  image.  “  Whoso  sheddeth  man’s  blood,  by 
man  shall  his  blood  be  shed  ;  for  in  the  image  of  God 
made  he  man”  (Gen.  ix.  6).  The  same  truth  is 
taught  by  the  apostle  when  he  says,  “  For  a  man  in¬ 
deed  ought  not  to  cover  his  head,  forasmuch  as  he  is 
the  image  and  glory  of  God ;  but  the  woman  is  the 
glory  of  the  man”  (1.  Cor.  xi.  7).  If  the  reader  should 
suggest  that  these  expressions  refer  to  the  intellectual 
nature  of  man  while  Dr.  Hodge  is  speaking  of  the 
spiritual  nature,  I  would  respectfully  reply  that  in¬ 
trinsically  considered  the  spiritual  is  involved  in  the 
intellectual.  An  intellectual  act  is,  or  is  not,  spiritual 
according  to  the  motive  which  prompts  the  act.  This 
is  practically  conceded  by  Dr.  Hodge  when  he  admits 
that  “  the  soul  is  a  unit.”  The  following  testimony 
is  peculiarly  interesting  as  coming  from  eminent  Cal¬ 
vinists.  Dr.  John  Tullochsays,  “  Man  is  a  fallen  and 
degraded  being.  He  is  at  the  best,  be  he  Pharisee  or 
Publican,  among  the  *  lost  ’  whom  Christ  came  to  seek 
and  to  save.  But  he  is  noble  even  in  his  degradation. 
There  is  a  capacity  of  divine  life  in  him,  beneath  all 
the  ruin  of  his  nature.  He  is  God-like,  even  with  the 
image  of  his  divine  original  broken  and  defaced. 
The  divine  likeness  is  obscured,  but  not  obliterated. 
It  may  be  traced  amidst  all  the  accumulations  of  sin- 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


!57 


ful  ruin . There  is  nothing  more  characteristic 

of  our  Lord’s  teaching  than  this  recognition  of  the  di¬ 
vine  original  of  humanity,  and  of  the  divine  potency 
which  still  survives  in  it.  This  is  the  only  key  to 
his  redemptive  mission.  He  came  to  recover  the 
fallen,  and  to  set  up  that  which  had  been  thrown 

down . Dark  as  sin  ever  is,  therefore,  in  the 

view  of  our  Lord,  and  fallen  as  human  nature  is,  it  is 
not  yet,  as  it  has  been  sometimes  represented,  a  mere 
mass  of  corruption.  The  tone  which  could  say  of  it 
that  it  contains  nothing  but  sin,  and  produces  nothing 
which  is  not  damnable,  is  foreign  to  the  Gospels.”  6 
Dr.  W.  G.  T.  Shedd  says  :  “There  must  be  this 
correspondence  between  the  judicial  nature  of  man, 
and  the  judicial  nature  of  God,  or  religion  is  impos¬ 
sible.  How  can  man  even  know  what  is  meant  by 
justice  in  the  Deity,  if  there  is  absolutely  nothing  of 
the  same  species  in  his  own  rational  constitution, 
which  if  realized  in  his  own  character  as  it  is  in  that 
of  God,  would  make  him  just,  as  God  is  just?  How 
can  he  know  what  is  meant  by  moral  perfection  in 
God,  if  in  his  own  rational  spirit  there  is  absolutely 
no  ideal  of  moral  excellence,  which  if  realized  in 
himself  as  it  is  in  the  Creator,  would  make  him 
excellent  as  he  is  excellent?  Without  some  mental 
correspondent,  to  which  to  appeal  and  commend  them¬ 
selves,  the  teachings  of  revelation  could  not  be  appre¬ 
hended.  A  body  of  knowledge  alone  is  not  the  whole  ; 
there  must  be  an  inlet  for  it,  an  organ  of  apprehen¬ 
sion.  But  if  there  is  no  such  particular  part  of  the 
human  constitution  as  has  been  described,  and  these 
calm  judgments  of  the  moral  sense,  and  this  righteous 


6  “  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,”  pp.  131,  132. 


158  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

displeasure  of  the  conscience,  are  to  be  put  upon  a 
level  with  the  workings  of  the  fancy  and  imagination, 
or  the  selfish  passions  of  the  human  heart,  then  there 
is  no  point  of  contact  and  communication  between  the 
nature  of  man  and  the  being  of  God.  There  is  no 
part  of  his  own  complex  being  upon  which  man  may 
fall  back,  with  the  certainty  of  not  being  mistaken  in 
judgments  of  ethics  and  religion.  Both  anchor  and 
anchoring-ground  are  gone,  and  he  is  afloat  upon  the 
boundless,  starless  ocean  of  ignorance  and  scepticism. 
Even  if  revelations  are  made,  they  can  not  enter  his 
mind.  There  is  no  contacting  surface  through  which 
they  can  approach  and  take  hold  of  his  being.  They 
can  not  be  seen  to  be  what  they  really  are,  the  absolute 
truth  of  God,  because  there  is  no  eye  with  which  to 
see  them.”  7 

II.  It  is  objected  that  the  view  here  taught  con¬ 
tradicts  many  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  men  are 
said  to  be  drawn  unto  the  Father:  viz.,  “No  man 
can  come  to  me,  except  the  Father  which  hath  sent 
me  draw  him  :  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. 
Every  man  therefore  that  hath  heard,  and  learned  of 
the  Father,  cometh  unto  me.  No  man  can  come  unto 
me,  except  it  were  given  unto  him  of  my  Father” 
(John  vi.  44,  45,  65). 

But  I  find  no  difficulty  with  these  declarations.  I 
accept  them  as  teaching  the  necessity  of  a  divine  influ¬ 
ence  for  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  Nowhere  have  I 
taught  that  man  can  save  himself.  On  the  contrary  I 
have  strenuously  maintained  that  without  God,  the 
soul  is  hopelessly  lost  in  sin.  Denying  the  passivity 
of  man  is  not  denying  the  activity  of  God.  To  be 


7  “  Discourses  and  Rssays,”  pp.  290,  291. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


159 


saved  men  must  be  drawn  to  Jesus,  but  the  yielding 
to  those  influences  is  implied  in  the  exercise  of  faith 
which  is  man’s  part  in,  and  the  sole  condition  of,  salva¬ 
tion.  The  merciful  Father  earnestly  seeks  to  draw  all 
unto  Jesus.  Why  he  does  not,  the  Saviour’s  own  words 
inform  us  :  ‘  ‘And  ye  will  not  come  to  me,  that,  ye  might 
'iave  life”  (John  v.  40).  Hence  as  Neander  truly 
says  :  ‘  ‘  He  who  will  not  follow  the  Divine  ‘  draw¬ 
ing  ’  (revealed  in  his  dawning  consciousness  of  God) 
can  never  attain  to  faith  in  Christ,  and  must  feel  him¬ 
self  repelled  from  his  words.”  8 

The  same  principle  will  apply  to  such  passages  as 
“  My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and 
they  follow  me  :  and  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life. 

.  .  .  .  ”  (John  x.  27,  28).  “It  is  given  unto  you  to 
know  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  to 
them  it  is  not  given”  (Matt.  xiii.  11).  “I  thank 
thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  because 
thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent, 
and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes”  (xi.  25).  The 
Master’s  sheep  are  those,  who,  having  the  right  dis¬ 
position,  as  Dr.  Barnes  says,  or  in  whom  there  is  the 
spirit  of  faith,  are  drawn  unto  “the  Lamb  of  God 
which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.”  And  what 
was  the  reason  why  ‘  ‘  these  things,  ”  “  the  mysteries 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ’  ’  were  concealed  ‘  ‘  from  the 
wise  and  prudent  ”  ?  Let  the  reader  turn  again  to  the 
words  of  the  Master,  Matt.  xiii.  12  :  “  For  whoso¬ 

ever  hath,  to  him  shall  be  given,  and  he  shall  have 
more  abundance  ;  but  whosoever  hath  not  from  him 
shall  be  taken  away,  even  that  he  hath.”  Here  is  a 
most  fortunate  occurrence.  The  very  passage  which 


8  “Life  of  Christ,”  p.  106. 


160  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

Dr.  Hodge  quotes  as  favoring  the  doctrine  that  God 
purposely  withholds  enlightening  grace,  Jesus  ex¬ 
plains,  giving  as  the  reason  why  the  mysteries  of  the 
kingdom  are  concealed  from  some  men,  that  in  them 
there  is  a  fatal  lack — they  have  no  desire  to  improve 
their  opportunities. 

III.  It  is  said  that  the  Scriptures  declare  repent¬ 
ance  to  be  a  gift  from  God.  In  speaking  to  the  un¬ 
believing  Jews,  Peter  says  of  Jesus,  “  Him  hath  God 
exalted  with  his  right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a 
Saviour,  for  to  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  forgive¬ 
ness  of  sins”  (Acts  v.  31).  Paul  tells  Timothy  that 
“the  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not  strive;  but  be 
gentle  unto  all  men,  apt  to  teach,  patient,  in  meek¬ 
ness  instructing  those  that  oppose  themselves  ;  if  God 
peradventure  will  give  them  repentance  to  the  ac¬ 
knowledging  of  the  truth  ”  (11.  Tim.  ii.  24,  25).  Now, 
I  ask  the  reader,  in  all  fairness,  what  are  we  to  under¬ 
stand  by  these  passages  ?  As  truth  seekers  we  are  to 
open  our  minds  to  every  ray  of  light,  and  so  far  as 
possible,  judge  things  upon  their  merits.  If  Dr. 
Hodge’s  interpretation  is  the  only  one  allowable,  or  if 
it  is  more  consistent,  with  the  general  subject  under 
consideration,  then  I  must  accept  it.  So  far  as  I 
know,  there  are  but  three  possible  views:  viz.,  (1) 
That  of  Dr.  Hodge — faith  and  repentance  the  direct 
gifts  of  God  withheld  from  the  non-elect.  (2)  That  of 
Dr.  Whedon,  who  says  of  11.  Tim.  ii.  24,  25,  that  it 
is  “  the  power,  not  the  act  of  repentance  ”  which  is 
divinely  given  ;  and  (3)  That  these  declarations  are 
used  comprehensively  to  express  the  general  work  of 
salvation  and  not  to  discriminate  concerning  the  divine 
and  human. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  l6l 

I  can  not  agree  with  Dr.  Whedon’s  exposition, 
because  if  I  mistake  not,  the  fundamental  principles 
of  his  theology  necessitate  the  conclusion  that  all  men 
have  the  power  to  repent.  9  But  in  n.  Tim.  ii.  25 
there  is  a  conditional  giving  ;  there  was  something  of 
which  these  “  opposers  ”  were  destitute.  They  may 
obtain  it ;  otherwise  the  “if”  is  of  no  force  ;  hence  it 
can  not  be  the  power  to  repent  which  is  here  meant, 
for  Arminians  have  always  earnestly  contended  that 
God  does  give  power  for  the  obeying  of  his  commands  ; 
but  in  these  passages  that  which  is  affirmed  as  coming 
from  God  is  not  given  unconditionally  ;  nay,  it  might 
be  withheld. 

My  reasons  for  rejecting  the  interpretation  of  Dr. 
Hodge  will  be  manifest  as  I  elucidate  the  third  view. 
For  a  correct  understanding  of  this  subject  we  must 
turn  to  the  Master’s  w7ords  expressed  to  the  disciples 
just  before  his  ascension.  “Thus  it  is  written  and 
thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  from  the 
dead  the  third  day.  And  that  repentance  and  remis¬ 
sion  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name  among  all 
nations,  beginningat  Jesusalem  ”  (Lukexxiv.  46,  47). 

The  Master  here  describes  the  future  work  of  the 
apostles.  In  its  spirit  it  was  the  same  as  he  had  been 
doing,  and  in  which  they  had  assisted  him,  as  we  find 
from  the  following  :  “  From  that  time  Jesus  began  to 

preach,  and  to  say,  Repent,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
is  at  hand”  (Matt.  iv.  17).  “And  they  went  out, 
and  preached  that  men  should  repent  ”  (Mark  vi.  12). 


9  “  Power  must  underlie  obligation.”  “  Will,”  p.  398.  “  Man  is  .  .  . 

born  in  a  ‘  state  of  initial  salvation  ’  as  Fletcher  of  Madeley  called  it,  and 
the  means  of  final  salvation  are  amply  placed  within  the  reach  of  his  free 
choice”  "  Meth.  Quarterly,”  1879,  p.  411. 


162  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

As  this  was  the  work  of  the  disciples  before  the  ascen¬ 
sion,  so  was  it  afterwards.  It  was  God’s  work  ;  it  was 
the  work  of  saving  souls  estranged  from  the  Father, 
hence,  it  is  repeatedly  called  the  work  of  salvation  ; 
hence,  my  view  of  these  passages  is  simply  this  :  they 
speak  of  repentance  and  of  the  remission  of  sins  in  a 
popular  way,  as  included  in  the  work  of  salvation. 
Thinking  of  the  results  as  a  whole,  remembering,  that 
without  divine  aid,  salvation  is  impossible,  the  apostles 
used  common,  instead  of  scientific  or  theological 
language.  This  method  of  speaking  was  adopted  by 
the  Saviour  when  he  said  to  the  woman  of  Samaria, 
“Salvation  is  of  the  Jews.”  An  extreme  literalist 
could  say  with  the  same  degree  of  plausibility  Jesus 
here  taught  that  the  Jews  could  save.  The  Master’s 
meaning  is  sufficiently  clear  the  moment  we  consider 
the  circumstances  in  which  the  words  were  uttered, 
namely  :  that  salvation  comes  through  or  by  the  He¬ 
brew  nation  as  God’s  chosen  people.  But  in  my  opin¬ 
ion  the  meaning  of  repentance  as  here  used  is  no  less 
clear  when  we  fairly  consider  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  word  was  employed. 

This  will  be  more  evident  as  we  consider  a  few 
passages  in  which  the  term  repentance  occurs.  “  But 
go  ye  and  learn  what  that  meaneth,  I  will  have  mercy, 
and  not  sacrifice  ;  for  I  am  not  come  to  call  the  right¬ 
eous,  but  sinners  to  repentance’’  (Matt.  ix.  13). 
Peter  explains  his  strange  conduct  while  with  the  Gen¬ 
tiles  by  saying,  “Forasmuch  then  as  God  gave  them 
the  like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us,  who  believed  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  what  was  I,  that  I  could  with¬ 
stand  God  ?  When  they  heard  these  things,  they 
held  their  peace,  and  glorified  God,  saying,  Then 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  1 63 

■v 

hath  God  also  to  the  Gentiles  granted  repentance  unto 
life.”  (Acts  xi.  17,  18).  “Or  despisest  thou  the 
riches  of  his  goodness  and  forbearance  and  longsuf- 
fering  ;  not  knowing  that  the  goodness  of  God  leadetli 
thee  to  repentance?”  (Rom.  ii.  4).  “For  the  gifts 
and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance.”  (xi.  29). 
Peter  declares  that  God  is  “not  willing  that  any 
should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance.” 
(11.  Pet.  iii.  9).  In  these  passages  the  general  work 
of  salvation  is  the  primary  idea  ;  yet  repentance  is 
spoken  of  as  the  result  of  Christ’s  coming  and  call ; 
or  as  the  consequence  of  a  right  perception  of  God’s 
goodness.  While  “  salvation  is  of  the  Jews,”  it  came 
by  them  to  the  Gentiles  ;  hence,  repentance  is  said  to 
have  been  granted  unto  them.  But  why  were  the 
Jews  rejected?  Because  they  sinned  and  would  not 
repent.  Hence  my  conclusion  concerning  these  pas¬ 
sages  is  this  :  they  were  intended  to  express  the  gen¬ 
eral  work  of  salvation,  which  of  necessity  is  of  God. 
The  Holy  Spirit’s  influences  followed,  give  as  a  result, 
repentance  for  sin  and  salvation  :  Yet  the  faith  and 
repentance  are  acts  of  the  individual,  which  may,  or 
may  not  be  exercised.  IV.  It  is  said  the  Bible  de¬ 
clares  faith  to  be  the  gift  of  God,  namely,  “  For  to 
one  is  given  by  the  spirit  the  word  of  wisdom  ;  to  an¬ 
other  the  word  of  knowledge  by  the  same  spirit  ;  to 
another  faith  by  the  same  spirit  ;  to  another  the  gifts 
of  healing  by  the  same  spirit”  (1.  Cor.  xii.  8,  9). 
“  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith  ;  and  that 
not  of  yourselves;  it  is  the  gift  of  God”  (Eph.  ii.  8). 
For  a  correct  understanding  of  the  first  passage  we 
must  remember  that  chapters  xii-xiv.  are  devoted  to 
a  consideration  of  spiritual  gifts.  In  the  Church  of 


164  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

Corinth  there  had  been  not  a  little  confusion  growing 
out  of  the  exercising  of  the  different  gifts  conferred 
upon  them  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  While  some  were 
prophesying,  others  were  interpreting  ;  while  some  were 
praying,  others  were  singing,  thus  bringing  the  faith 
of  the  gospel  into  disrepute.  The  apostle  corrects 
this  by  showing  that  while  there  is  a  diversity  of  gifts 
there  is  but  one  source  whence  they  come  :  hence,  as 
God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion  they  must  become 
more  orderly.  Consequently,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
there  is  no  reference  in  the  mind  of  the  apostle  to  the 
gift  of  saving,  or  justifying  faith  :  that  is  necessarily 
presupposed  to  be  possessed  by  all  to  whom  he  is 
writing  ;  the  faith  here  spoken  of  is  that  kind  of  faith, 
trust,  or  strength  necessary  for  the  performance  of 
some  daring  or  extraordinary  duty.  Precisely  like 
Luther’s  experience  at  the  Diet  of  Worms.  He  al¬ 
ready  possessed  saving  faith  :  now,  as  he  stands  before 
his  enemies,  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus  Christ  must  be 
clear  and  strong  ;  hence,  if  he  will  seek  and  trust  di¬ 
vine  grace,  his  voice  shall  penetrate  the  four  quarters 
of  the  earth.  The  same  general  idea  is  expressed  by 
Lange.  “  Not  that  faith  which  receives  salvation  in 
Christ,  i.  e.,  justifying  faith,  but  a  strong  confidence 
in  the  divine  omnipotence,  or  in  the  power  of  Christ 
as  able  to  make  itself  manifest  in  extraordinary  deeds  ; 
or  to  afford  and  insure  help  of  a  supernatural  kind  ; 
or,  in  other  words,  a  confidence  which  shall  enable  a 
man  to  perform  these  deeds,  or  to  afford  this  help.” 
Generically  the  same  kind  of  faith  which  was  lacking 
in  the  disciples  when  they  attempted,  but  failed,  to 
cure  the  lunatic  son.  As  we  have  seen  their  faith  was 
increased  by  witnessing  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  165 

The  Spirit  sanctified  this  unto  their  spiritual  good  ; 
consequently  in  this  sense  faith  comes  by,  or  through 
the  Spirit. 

Concerning  the  passage  in  Ephesians  it  is  pertinent 
to  ask  What  is  the  gift  of  God  ?  Is  it  the  grace  or 
the  faith  ?  If  the  latter,  then  so  far,  the  discussion 
must  be  decided  in  favor  of  Dr.  Hodge.  If  the  former, 
then  the  last  support  to  the  doctrine  that  faith  is  a 
direct  gift  of  God  is  removed.  I  shall  now  endeavor 
to  show  that  such  is  the  fact.  Alford’s  translation  is 
as  follows  :  ‘  ‘  For  by  grace  have  ye  been  saved  through 
faith  ;  and  that  not  of  yourselves  ;  of  God  is  the  gift.” 
Commenting  on  the  text,  he  says,”  ‘  by  grace  ’  above, 
expressed  the  objective  instrumental  condition  of  your 
salvation, — this  ‘  through  faith  ’  the  subjective  medial 
condition  ;  it  has  been  effected  by  grace  and  appre¬ 
hended  by  faith  :  and  this  (your  salvation  your  having 
been  saved)  not  of  yourselves  ;  God’s  is  the  gift.” 
Lange  says  ”  The  emphasis  rests  on  ‘  by  grace,’  which 
is  placed  first,  being  the  causa  efficie7is ;  the  causa 
appreheyideyis  follows,  as  a  modal  qualification.” 
Again,  ”  ‘And  that’  refers  back  to  the  idea  of  the 
preceding  verb  :  ‘  ye  are  saved  ’  in  the  sense  of  et 
quidem:  and  this  in  addition  I  say,  or  and  this,  being 
saved  through  faith,  comes  not  of  yourselves.”  The 
testimony  of  Dr.  Riddle,  the  American  Editor,  is  quite 
suggestive.  “  The  reference  to  salvation  is  adopted  by 
Calvin, Rueckert,  Harless, Olshausen,  Meyer,  DeWette, 
Stier,  Eadie,  Alford,  Ellicott,  and  every  commentator 
of  note  since  the  days  of  Bengel,  except  Hodge.” 

Elsewhere  Dr.  Riddle  says  ” . on  doctrinal 

grounds  there  is  no  objection  to  the  reference  to  faith  ;  ’  ’ 
and,  quoting  Dr.  Hodge,  ”  The  analogy  of  Scripture  is 


1 66  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

in  favor  of  this  view.”  But  this  is  not  so  evident.  As 
the  discussion  continues  the  reader  will  see  that  the 
analogy  of  Scripture  requires  the  doctrine  which  has 
been  maintained  in  this  chapter.  If  the  clearest  pas¬ 
sages  of  Scripture  concerning  the  origin  and  nature  of 
faith,  if  the  texts  upon  which  Dr.  Hodge  confidently 
relies  do  not  teach  that  faith  is  a  direct  gift  of  God,  it 
is  certainly  'contradicted  by  the  analogy  of  faith.  This 
is  more  clearly  seen  by  remembering  that  throughout 
the  Scriptures  the  grace  of  God,  the  salvation  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  designated  “  the  gift  of  God.”  To 
the  woman  of  Samaria  the  Master  said,  “  If  thou  knew- 
est  the  gift  of  God,  and  who  it  is  that  saith  to  thee, 
Give  me  to  drink  ;  thou  wouldest  have  asked  of  him, 
and  he  would  have  given  thee  living  water”  (John  iv. 
io).  Bengel  says  “The  gift  is  the  living  water.” 
Meyer  refers  it  to  the  meeting  and  conversation  with 
Jesus.  Alford  thinks  it  is  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
The  fundamental  idea  is  the  same.  Salvation  is  the 
gift.  Its  conditionality  is  unmistakably  affirmed  by 
the  words  “  if  thou  knewest  ” — “  thou  wouldest  have 
asked.”  As  Dr.  Hanna  has  said,  “  Still  from  the  lips 
of  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  over  all  the  world  the 
words  are  sounding  forth  :  ‘  If  any  man  thirst,  let  him 
come  to  me  and  drink.’  Still  the  manner  of  his  dis¬ 
pensation  of  the  great  gift  stands  embodied  in  the 
words:  “Thou  wouldest  have  asked,  and  I  would 
have  given  thee  living  water.’  ” 

In  the  light  of  this  investigation  we  more  clearly 
seethe  true  moral  relation  between  evidence  and  faith. 
God  can  not  compel  the  mind  to  believe  :  there  may 
be,  and  is  such  abundant  evidence  as  to  convince  all 
who  have  any  disposition  to  believe  :  at  the  same  time 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  1 67 

there  must  be  and  is  full  scope  for  men  to  refuse.  This, 
I  say,  must  be  so  :  otherwise  there  can  be  no  test,  no 
responsibility,  and  so  far  forth,  no  merit  or  demerit. 
In  this  connection  I  am  happy  to  quote  from  Doctor 
Mark  Hopkins.  “  Certainly,  if  God  has  provided  evi¬ 
dence  as  convincing  as  that  of  the  forty-seventh  prop¬ 
osition  of  Euclid,  so  that  all  men  have  to  do  is  to 
examine  it  with  candor,  then  they  must  be  without 
excuse  if  they  do  not  believe.  This,  I  suppose,  God 
has  done.  He  asks  no  one  to  believe  except  on  the 
ground  of  evidence,  and  such  evidence  as  ought  to 
command  assent.  Eet  a  man  examine  this  evidence 
with  entire  candor,  laying  aside  all  prejudices,  simply 
according  to  the  laws  of  evidence,  and  then  if  he  is  not 
convinced,  I  believe  God  will  so  far  forth  acquit  him 
in  the  great  day  of  judgment.  But  if  God  has  given 
man  such  evidence  that  a  fair,  and  full,  and  perfectly 
candid  examination  is  all  that  is  needed  to  necessitate 
belief,  then,  if  men  do  not  believe,  it  will  be  in  this 
very  law  that  we  shall  find  the  ground  of  their  con¬ 
demnation.  The  difficulty  will  not  lie  in  their  mental 
constitution  as  related  to  evidence,  nor  in  the  want  of 
evidence,  but  in  that  moral  condition,  that  state  of  the 
heart,  or  the  will,  which  prevented  a  proper  examina¬ 
tion.”  1 

The  thought  of  Pascal  is  admirable.  “Divine 
truths  reach  the  spirit  through  the  heart.  We  must 
love  divine  things  in  order  to  know  them.  Christian¬ 
ity  reveals  herself  to  those  only  who  possess  a  sincere 
longing  to  know  her.  ’  ’ 


]  “  Evidences  of  Christianity.” 


CHAPTER  IV. 


For  What  Are  The  Non-Eeect  Eternaeey 

Punished  ? 

“  The  ivy  in  a  dungeon  grew, 

Unfed  by  rain,  uncheered  by  dew  ; 

The  pallid  leaflets  only  drank 
Cave-moistures  foul,  and  odors  dank. 

But  through  the  dungeon-grating  high 
There  fell  a  sunbeam  from  the  sky  ; 

It  slept  upon  the  grateful  floor 
In  silent  gladness  evermore. 

The  ivy  felt  a  tremor  shoot 
Through  all  its  fibres  to  the  root  ; 

It  felt  the  light,  it  saw  the  ray, 

It  strove  to  blossom  into  day  ; 

It  grew,  it  crept,  it  pushed,  it  clomb — 

Tong  had  the  darkness  been  its  home  : 

But  well  it  knew,  though  veiled  in  night, 

The  goodness  and  the  joy  of  light. 

It  reached  the  beam — it  thrilled — it  curled — 

It  blessed  the  warmth  that  cheers  the  world  ; 

It  rose  towards  the  dungeon  bars— 

It  looked  upon  the  sky  and  stars. 

It  felt  the  life  of  bursting  spring, 

It  heard  the  happy  skylark  sing ; 

It  caught  the  breath  of  morns  and  eves, 

And  wooed  the  swallow  to  its  leaves. 

By  rains  and  dews,  and  sunshine  fed, 

Over  the  outer  wall  it  spread  ; 

And  in  the  daybeam  waving  free, 

It  grew  into  a  steadfast  tree. 

Wouldst  know  the  moral  of  the  rhyme  ? 

Behold  the  heavenly  light  and  climb  ! 

To  every  dungeon  conies  a  ray 
Of  God’s  interminable  day  !  ” 


CHAPTER  IV. 


For  What  Are  The  Non-Elect  Eternally 

Punished  ? 

Calvinism  claims  to  be  the  teaching  of  Scripture. 
In  this  Part  I  have  tried  to  bring  the  Augustinian  or 
Calvinistic  theology  face  to  face  with  the  Word  of 
God,  thus  enabling  the  reader  to  judge  for  himself. 
So  far,  the  claims  of  the  Calvinist  have  not  been  veri¬ 
fied.  The  previous  chapters  have  shown  a  great  dis¬ 
parity  between  the  so-called  orthodox  faith  and  the 
Scriptures.  I  shall  now  attempt  to  show  that  Calvin¬ 
ism  still  further  contradicts  the  plain  teaching  of  God’s 
‘  Word. 


SECTION  I. 

Can  the  Non- Elect  be  Saved  f 

The  Bible  answers  this  question  clearly  and  con¬ 
sistently  by  declaring  that  so  far  as  the  will  of  God 
is  related  to  the  salvation  of  the  race,  all  may  be  saved. 
Christ  came  to  seek  and  to  save  the  lost  (Euke  xix. 
io).  But  all  are  lost.  Yes,  and  the  gracious  Saviour 
died  for  all,  that  through  faith  in  him  all  might  be 
saved  (John  iii.  16,  17).  The  one  condition  of  salva¬ 
tion — faith  which  worketh  by  love— is,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  part  which  the  soul  must  do.  Refusing  to 
believe,  the  sinner  must  die  in  his  sins  :  he  can  not  be 
saved.  This  is  so,  not  because  it  is  the  will  of  God, 

169 


170  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

nor  because  God  could,  but  does  not  give  saving  faith; 
but  it  is  because  the  soul  thus  refusing  to  accept  the 
divine  promises  places  itself  beyond  the  reach  of  sav¬ 
ing  grace  (John  xvi.  8,  9;  Matt,  xxiii.  37;  Heb.  xi.  6). 
But  as  we  proceed,  the  reader  will  please  notice  that 
Calvinism  denies  that  which  the  Scriptures  clearly 
affirm. 

Calvin  delares  the  doctrine  of  salvation  “  is  abused 
when  it  is  represented  as  effectually  available  to  all.”  1 

Toplady  says,  God  never  designed  to  save  every 
individual  ;  since  if  he  had,  every  individual  would 
and  must  be  saved,  for  his  counsel  shall  stand,  and  he 

will  do  all  his  pleasure . Neither  is  it  possible, 

in  the  very  nature  of  the  thing,  that  they  should  be 
elected  to  salvation,  or  ever  obtain  it,  whom  God  fore¬ 
knew  should  perish  ;  for  then  the  divine  act  of  preter- 
ition  would  be  changeable,  wavering  and  precarious. 

.  .  .  .  If  between  the  elect  and  reprobate  there  was  not 
a  great  gulf  fixed,  so  that  neither  can  be  otherwise 
than  they  are,  then  the  will  of  God,  which  is  alone 
the  cause  why  some  are  chosen,  and  others  not,  would 
be  rendered  inefficacious  and  of  no  effect.”  2 

In  a  work  entitled  “  A  Defence  of  Some  of  the 
Important  Doctrines  of  the  Gospel  ’  ’  and  published 
by  the  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication,  Rev.  John 
Sladen  says,  “Some  allow  of  a  particular  election,  but 
deny  any  such  thing  as  non-election  or  preterition  : 
they  grant  that  a  certain  number  shall  infallibly  be 
saved,  but  at  the  same  time,  affirm  that  all  may  be 
saved  if  they  will.  This  is  an  opinion  that  is  absurd 


1  “  Institutes.”  B.  III.,  Ch.  XXII..  See.  io. 

2  “  Works,”  pp.  692,  693. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE}.  171 

in  its  very  nature,  as  well  as  it  is  evidently  contrary 
to  the  Word  of  God.”  3 

While  Dr.  Griffin  is  speaking  of  the  non-elect  as 
marching  on  to  death,  he  makes  his  opponent  say  as 
a  reason  for  their  fate,  “  they  do  not  believe  ”  :  to  this 
he  answers  ‘  ‘  Aye,  and  one  reason  why  they  do  not 
believe  is  that  faith  is  the  gift  of  God.”  4 

Beyond  all  controversy  faith  is  necessary  to  salva¬ 
tion  ;  how  then,  is  it  possible  for  the  non-elect  to  be 
saved  if  God  has  determined  to  withhold  the  gift  of 
saving  faith  ?  There  is  no  such  possibility  if  Calvinism 
be  true.  The  above  extracts  sufficiently  indicate  the 
drift  of  consistent  Calvinism.  But  there  are  theolo¬ 
gians  who  prefer  the  name  of  “modern”  or  “  modi¬ 
fied  ’  ’  Calvinists  who  endeavor  to  maintain  both  sides 
of  the  question.  One  moment  they  declare  that  inas¬ 
much  as  faith  is  withheld  from  the  non-elect  they  can 
not  be  saved  ;  but  presto  change,  and  the  very  reverse 
is  affirmed,  namely,  that  if  the  non-elect  will  only 
believe  they  may  and  will  be  saved.  This  is  one  of 
the  necessary  features  of  the  so-called  “  modified  Cal¬ 
vinism.”  It  is  quite  difficult  to  distinguish  its  true 
bearings.  The  student  is  perplexed  by  the  many 
plain  contradictions  which  constantly  meet  him.  It 
has  the  reputation  of  being  less  repugnant  than  the 
older  Calvinism,  but  it  is  at  the  expense  of  consistency 
and  the  logical  forms  of  thought. 

That  the  reader  may  judge  for  himself  concerning 
the  validity  of  this  charge,  I  shall  now  quote  from  the 


3  p.  76. 

4  “  Divine  Efficiency,”  p.  184. 


I72  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


writings  of  a  few  able  authorities,  placing  their  dif¬ 
ferent  utterances  side  by  side.  Dr.  Venema  says  : 


“  All  have  common  grace, 
and  it  is  possible  for  all  to  be¬ 
lieve  ;  and  if  they  will  believe 
they  will  be  saved.”  p.  303. 


“  God  determined  what  the 
creatures  would  do,  and  what 
their  condition  would  be,  who 
should  believe,  and  who  should 
not  :  and  that  his  decree  re¬ 
garding  them  and  everything 
relating  to  them  was  absolute.  ’  ’ 
p.  290. 


The  following  is  from  Nehemiah  Adams. 


“No  injustice  is  done  to 
those  who  are  left :  salvation 
is  consistently  offered  to  them, 
and  their  state  is  no  worse 
than  though  all  like  them  had 
perished.”  p.  246. 

Dr.  Emmons  says  : 

“If  men  have  natural  power 
to  frustrate,  as  well  as  to  ful¬ 
fill  the  decrees  of  God,  then 
the  non-elect  have  as  fair  an 
opportunity  of  being  saved  as 
the  elect.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  368. 


“True,  he  saw  that  no  one 
would  turn  without  some  spe¬ 
cial  act  on  his  part.”  p.  254. 


“  He  decreed  the  existence, 
the  character,  the  conduct  and 
the  state  of  all  moral  beings 
both  in  time  and  eternity.  He 
decreed  that  some  should  be 
the  monuments  of  his  good¬ 
ness,  some,  the  monuments  of 
his  justice ;  and  some  the 
monuments  of  his  mercy. 
And  he  decreed  all  the  means 
by  which  his  rational  creatures 
should  be  brought  to  their 
final  and  eternal  condition.” 


P-  333- 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


173 


Dr.  Leonard  Woods  says  that 


“  God  will  save  all  the  non- 
elect  who  comply  with  the 
conditions  of  salvation.”  Vol. 
I.  P-  543- 


“He  knows  men  will  not 
repent,  unless  by  bis  Spirit, 
he  gives  them  repentance.” 
p.  511. 


The  celebrated  John  Howe  affirms  : 


“Whatsoever  there  is  that 
comes  within  the  compass  of 
a  promise  for  the  encourage¬ 
ment  of  sinners  to  return  and 
come  to  God,  it  will  all  be 
made  good  to  a  tittle  upon  his 
account  that  is  worthy ;  all 
promises  being  yea  and  amen 
in  him.”  p.  1139. 


“Nothing  but  the  almighty 
power  of  grace  can  make  an 
enemy  heart  become  friendly 
towards  God  and  towards  his 
Christ :  can  vanish  the  ma¬ 
lignity  of  an  obstinate  infidel¬ 
ity  ;  can  mollify  an  obdurate 
heart  and  make  it  dissolve  and 
melt,  as  in  repentance  it 
must.”  p.  1139. 


Although  Rev.  John  Sladen  calls  the  following  from 
Dr.  Wm.  Smith  absurd  and  unbiblical,  I  will  let  the 
reader  judge  for  himself : 


“  It  (election)  embraces  no 
decree  or  purpose  that  hinders 
any  one  from  coming  to  Christ 
and  being  saved  if  they 
would.”  p.  29. 


“  His  decrees  are  not  de¬ 
pendent  upon  his  foreknowl¬ 
edge,  not  identical  with  it.  . 
But  when  all  equally  deserve 
hell,  if  he  sees  fit  to  save  some 
for  a  display  of  his  mercy,  and 
leave  others  to  the  fate  they 
choose  for  a  display  of  his 
justice,  though  the  former 
have  great  ground  of  gratitude, 
the  others  have  no  cause  of 
complaint.”  p.  57. 


174  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


The  same  beautifully  consistent  “  if  ”  is  thus  put 
by  Milner  in  his  “  Practical  Sermons,”  Vol.  II.: 


men  may  be  saved  if 
they  please.  There  wants  the 
will  only.”  p.243. 


It  does  not  require  a 
detect  the  sophism  in  the 
Hodge: 

“The  righteousness  of  Christ 
being  of  infinite  value  or  mer¬ 
it,  and  being  in  its  nature  pre¬ 
cisely  what  all  men  need,  may 
be  offered  to  all  men.  It  is 
thus  offered  to  the  elect  and  to 
the  non-elect ;  and  it  is  offered 
to  both  classes  conditionally. 
That  condition  is  a  cordial  ac¬ 
ceptance  of  it  as  the  only 
ground  of  justification.  If  anv 
of  the  elect  (being  adults')  fail 
thus  to  accept  of  it,  they  per¬ 
ish.  If  any  of  the  non-elect 
should  believe,  they  would  be 


“  But  such  is  our  natural 
enmity  against  God,  that 
though  the  blood  of  his  Son 
was  freely  spilt  for  all  men 
without  exception,  not  one 
soul  would  return  to  God  by 
true  repentance  were  it  not  for 
his  blessed  and  adorable  pur¬ 
pose  of  election,  which  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world, 
determined  that  some  souls 
should  be  fitted  by  his  univer¬ 
sal  redemption  and  led  to  re¬ 
pentance  toward  God  and  to 
faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.”  p.  243. 

very  profound  insight  to 
following  from  Dr.  Charles 

“.  .  .  .  The  fall  of  Adam 
brought  all  his  posterity  into 
a  state  of  condemnation,  sin, 
and  misery,  from  which  they 
are  utterly  unable  to  deliver 
themselves.  .  .  .  For  the  sal¬ 
vation  of  those  thus  chosen  to 
eternal  life,  God  gave  his  own 
Son,  to  become  man,  and  to 
obey  and  suffer  for  his  people, 
thus  making  a  full  satisfaction 
for  sin,  and  bringing  in  ever¬ 
lasting  righteousness,  render¬ 
ing  the  ultimate  salvation  of 
the  elect  absolutely  certain. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


175 


saved.  What  more  does  any 
Anti-Augustinian  scheme  pro¬ 
vide?”  pp.  555,  556.  Vol.  II. 


That  while  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
his  common  operations,  i  s 
present  with  every  man,  so 
long  as  he  lives,  restraining 
evil  and  exciting  good,  his  cer¬ 
tainly  efficacious  and  saving 
power  is  exercised  only  in  be¬ 
half  of  the  elect.”  p.  333. 


The  following  is  from 
Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge: 

“A  salvation  all  sufficient 
and  exactly  adapted  to  his  ne¬ 
cessities  is  honestly  offered  to 
every  man  to  whom  the  gospel 
comes  ;  and  in  every  case  it  is 
his,  if  he  believes  ;  and  in  no 
case  does  anything  prevent  his 
believing  other  than  his  own 
evil  disposition.  ...  If  a  man 
is  responsible  for  a  bad  heart, 
and  the  exercises  thereof,  he 
must  be  above  all,  worthy  of 
condemnation  for  rejecting 
such  a  Saviour.”  p.317. 


‘  ‘  Outlines  of  Theology  ’  ’  by 

Of  the  ‘‘inner  call”  our 
author  says,  “That  it  is  an 
exercise  of  divine  power  upon 
the  soul,  immediately,  spirit¬ 
ual,  and  supernatural,  com¬ 
municating  a  new  spiritual 
life,  and  thus  making  a  new 
mode  of  spiritual  activity  pos¬ 
sible.  That  repentance,  faith, 
trust,  hope,  love,  etc.,  are  pure¬ 
ly  and  simply  the  sinner’s  own 
acts  ;  but  as  such  are  possible 
to  him  only  in  virtue  of  the 
change  wrought  in  the  moral 
condition  of  his  faculties  by 
the  recreative  power  of  God.” 
P-  336- 


Truly  our  Calvinistic  friends  are  magnanimous. 
The  non-elect  may  be  saved  “  if  they  would  only  be¬ 
lieve,”  and  yet  saving  faith  is  the  gift  of  God.  The 
non-elect  may  be  saved  if  they  will  exercise  true  re¬ 
pentance,  yet  they  are  in  a  state  of  condemnation,  sin 
and  misery  from  which  they  are  utterly  unable  to  de¬ 
liver  themselves.  ’  ’  The  non-elect  are  ‘  ‘  worthy  of 
condemnation  for  rejecting  such  a  Saviour,”  while  at 
the  same  time  they  can  not  exercise  faith,  hope,  and 


176  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

love  until  the  change  is  “  wrought  in  the  moral  condi¬ 
tion  of  ‘  their  ’  faculties  by  the  recreative  power  of 
God.”  While  I  abhor  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Cal¬ 
vinism,  I  have  some  respect  for  the  logical  consist¬ 
ency  and  fearlessness  of  the  older  theology  ;  but  away 
with  this  so-called  “Modified  Calvinism.”  It  ex¬ 
plains  nothing.  Nay,  it  increases  the  difficulties  by 
outraging  the  reader’s  intelligence. 

SECTION  11. 

Hozv  Certain  Calvinists  Vindicate  the  Divine  Justice  and 

Si?icerity. 

The  student  of  theology  occasionally  meets  a  Cal- 
vinistic  theologian  who  seems  to  be  in  trouble.  The 
system  may  be  perfectly  satisfactory  to  him ;  but  he 
has  a  certain  feeling — at  times  a  positive  conviction  — 
that  to  others  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism  are  not  so 
pleasant,  nor  reasonable.  Thinking  that  he  is  sus¬ 
tained  by  the  truth  of  reason  no  less  than  of  revela¬ 
tion,  he  often  attempts  to  remove  the  objections  which 
are  urged  against  his  position. 

The  former  section  disclosed  the  fact  that  the  non¬ 
elect  can  not  be  saved  :  that  even  those  who  declare 
they  may  if  they  will  only  believe,  also  declare  that 
without  the  gift  of  faith  they  can  not  believe  :  There 
is  a  third  class,  however,  whose  views  are  somewhat 
peculiar,  and  which  in  their  opinion,  satisfactorily  solve 
the  perplexing  question.  These  I  now  propose  to 
consider  in  detail  :  and  first,  let  us  hear  from  Dr.  Isaac 
Watts.  Of  the  non-elect  he  says,  ‘ 4  God  himself  has  put 
no  effectual  and  insurmountable  bar,  or  rather  no  bar  at 
all,  in  their  way,  to  prevent  their  acceptance  of  his 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


177 


grace.  His  choosing  other  persons  who  were  fellow 
sinners,  to  make  them  certain  partakers  of  this  grace, 
is  no  hindrance  to  those  who  were  not  chosen,  from 
accepting  the  same.  It  is  my  opinion  that  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  a  general  sufficiency  of  pardon,  grace 
and  happiness,  provided  for  all  mankind  by  Jesus 
Christ.  And  it  is  left  to  their  own  natural  powers 
under  common  helps  to  accept  or  refuse  it.”  Then  he 
gives  the  following  to  show  that  this  must  be  so  :  “It 
is  very  hard  to  vindicate  the  sincerity  of  the  blessed 
God,  or  his  Son,  in  their  universal  offers  of  grace  and 
salvation  to  men,  and  their  sending  ministers  and  such 
messages  and  invitations  to  accept  of  mercy,  if  there 
be  no  such  a  conditional  pardon  and  salvation  provided 
for  them.  ...  It  is  hard  to  suppose  that  the  great  God, 
who  is  truth  itself,  and  sincere  and  faithful  in  all  his 
dealings,  should  call  upon  dying  men  to  trust  in  a 
Saviour  for  eternal  life,  when  this  Saviour  has  no  eter¬ 
nal  life  intrusted  with  him  to  give  them,  if  they 
do  repent.  It  is  hard  to  conceive  how  the  great  Gov¬ 
ernor  of  the  world  can  be  sincere  in  inviting  and  re¬ 
quiring  sinners  who  are  on  the  brink  of  hell  to  cast 
themselves  upon  an  empty  word  of  invitation,  a  mere 
shadow  and  appearance  of  support,  if  there  be  noth¬ 
ing  real  to  bear  them  up  from  those  deeps  of  destruc¬ 
tion,  nothing  but  mere  words  and  empty  invitations.” 
Again  :  “I  say  it  is  hard  to  suppose  all  this  should 
be  no  real  and  just  representation,  but  a  mere  amuse¬ 
ment.  That  all  these  proposals  of  mercy  and  displays 
of  the  gracious  dealings  of  God,  should  be  an  empty 
shew  with  regard  to  all  the  millions  of  mankind, 
besides  the  few  that  are  chosen  to  happiness  :  and  that 
they  should  really  be  so  fixed  in  a  wretched,  hopeless^ 


178  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOO’S  WORD 

and  deplorable  state  under  the  first  sin  of  the  first 
man  that  they  are  utterly  irrecoverable  from  the  ruins 
of  it ;  and  that  even  as  unalterably  so  as  devils  are 
without  any  hope  of  recovering  from  their  state  of 
guilt  and  misery,  for  whom  there  was  no  Saviour  pro¬ 
vided,  and  whom  God  has  not  treated  in  this  way  of 
precept,  promise  and  threatening.”  5 

The  reader  will  please  notice  that  this  explanation 
is  given  as  the  only  one  which  satisfactorily  vindicate 
the  divine  goodness  and  justice.  But  so  far  as  it 
solves  the  problem,  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  Watts  is  Ar- 
minianism. 

This  is  evident  from  the  following  considerations  : 
(1)  Dr.  Watts  held  the  Arminian  doctrine  that  the 
will  is  self-determining.  Section  3  of  his  essay  “On 
the  Freedom  of  Will  in  God  and  in  Creatures,”  is  en¬ 
titled  “The  Will  is  a  Self-determining  Power.”  In 
speaking  of  the  advantages  of  this  doctrine,  he  says, 

‘  ‘  This  scheme  of  the  self-determining  power  of  the 
will  represents  the  doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  man’s 
will,  and  the  power  and  prevalence  of  divine  grace  in 
a  most  happy  harmony  and  consistency,  perhaps  be¬ 
yond  what  any  other  scheme  can  represent.”  6 

(2)  If  the  human  will  is  self-determining,  then  it 
legitimately  follows  that  salvation  is  a  matter  of  choice  : 
God  saves  all  who  will  exercise  faith  in  the  Saviour : 
hence  Dr.  Watts  says  of  salvation,  “.  .  .  .  it  is  left 
to  their  own  natural  powers,  under  common  helps  to 
acceptor  refuse  it.”  Again,  this  scheme  also  fixes 
the  guilt  of  evil  actions  entirely  on  the  will  of  the 
creature,  by  ascribing  to  the  will  a  free  power  to  de- 


5  “  Works.”  Vol.  III.,  pp.  468,  470. 

6  Pages,  262,  575. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  1 79 

termine  itself,  either  to  choose  or  to  refuse  after  any 
representations  of  good  or  evil,  fitness  or  unfitness, 
made  by  the  understanding.  7 

(3)  Dr.  Watts  held  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  divine 
foresight.  ‘  ‘  I  grant,  always,  and  have  always  granted, 
that  wheresoever  there  is  such  an  antecedent  superior 
fitness  of  things,  God  acts  according  to  it,  so  as  never 
to  contradict  it  :  and  particularly  in  all  his  judicial 
proceedings  as  a  Governor  and  Distributer  of  rewards 
and  punishments,  he  has  a  constant  regard  to  vice, 
and  virtue,  to  superior  fitness  and  unfitness,  though 
he  may  reward  or  rather  bestow  beyond  our  merit,  or 
he  may  punish  less.”  In  speaking  of  the  different 
theories  of  “  reconciliation  ”  he  asks  “A,”  “  Does  he 
not  also  believe,  that  the  blessed  God  foresees  and 
foreknows  that  these  men,  by  the  free  use  of  their 
natural  powers,  thus  far  assisted  by  divine  grace,  will 
be  finally  and  effectually  persuaded  to  believe  and 
repent,  and  be  saved  ?  Has  not  the  blessed  God,  who 
knows  all  his  own  works  from  the  beginning,  designed 
from  eternity  to  bestow  all  these  advantages  on  these 
particular  persons,  and  to  carry  them  on  so  far,  that 
he  foresees  their  repentance,  and  salvation  will  be  the 
certain  eonsecpiences  of  this  his  grace,  though  not  the 
necessary  effects  of  it  ?  ”  s 

Believing  that  the  reader  can  readily  recognize 
these  statements  as  essentially  Arminian,  I  will  not 
stop  to  adduce  proof  beyond  one  statement  from  Dr. 
Charles  Hodge,  viz.,  “  It  is  plain  that  the  main  point  of 
difference  between  the  later  Lutheran,  the  Arminian, 
and  the  Wesleyan  schemes,  and  that  of  Augustinians 


7  Pages,  468,  572. 

8  Pages,  591,  492. 


l8o  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

is,  that  according  to  the  latter,  God,  and  according  to 
the  former,  man,  determines  who  are  to  be  saved.’7  ,J 

(4)  Dr.  Watts  is  strongly  condemned  by  later  Cal¬ 
vinists,  because  his  views  logically  necessitate  an 
abandonment  of  Calvinism.  The  younger  Edwards 
speaking  of  the  state  of  things  in  the  religious  world 
at  the  time  when  his  father  commenced  writing  his 
treatise  on  the  Will,  says,  “  The  Calvinists  themselves 
began  to  be  ashamed  of  their  own  cause  and  to  give  it  up 
so  far  at  least  as  relates  to  liberty  and  necessity.  This 
was  true  especially  of  Doctors  Watts  and  Doddridge, 
who,  in  their  day,  were  accounted  leaders  of  the  Cal¬ 
vinists.  They  must  needs  bow  in  the  house  of  Rim- 
mon  and  admit  the  self-determining  power  (of  the 
will)  which  once  admitted  and  pursued  to  its  ultimate 
results,  entirely  overthrows  the  doctrines  of  regener- 
tion,  of  our  dependence  for  renewing  and  sanctifying 
grace,  of  absolute  decrees,  of  the  saints’  perseverance, 
and  of  all  the  other  doctrines  of  grace.” 

A  mournful  confession  truly,  but  one  which  un¬ 
mistakably  shows  that  the  fundamental  principles  of 
Dr.  Watts’  theology  were  Arminian.  So  far  there¬ 
fore  as  the  solution  is  to  be  accepted  it  simply  con¬ 
firms  the  position  of  the  Arminian.  But  what  shall 
be  done  with  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  under  consider¬ 
ation  ?  It  has  not  been  satisfactorily  explained  ; 
hence,  ‘  ‘  it  is  very  hard  to  vindicate  the  sincerity  of 
the  blessed  God,  or  his  Son,  in  their  universal  offers 
of  grace  and  salvation  to  men,  and  their  sending  min¬ 
isters  with  such  messages  and  invitations  to  accept  of 
mercy,  if  there  be  no  such  a  conditional  pardon  and 
salvation  provided  for  them.”  At  this  point  I  could 


9  “  Systematic  Theology,”  Vol.  II.,  p.  330. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURK.  l8l 

dismiss  Dr.  Watts  and  his  solution  ;  but  if  the  reader 
will  be  patient  I  should  like  to  investigate  this  won¬ 
derful  explanation  a  little  further.  Rev.  Henry  L. 
Kendall  lias  said,  “One  detects  in  the  theological 
writings  of  Dr.  Watts  a  mingling  of  the  poetical  with 
the  logical  element.  Not  only  does  it  add  a  glow  to 
the  style  and  language,  but  it  also  sometimes  per¬ 
forms  functions  of  an  originative  faculty.  There  are 
some  peculiar  theories  pertaining  to  the  mysteries  of 
Christianity,  the  first  suggestions  of  which  one  could 
easily  fancy  had  their  birth  in  this  part  of  the  author’s 
nature.  Perhaps  this,  also,  may  serve  to  explain  why 
some  parts  of  these  works  were  disparaged  in  the  eyes 
of  the  early  American  divines,  and  why  they  failed  to 
receive  a  more  hearty  acceptance  from  them.  The 
sinewy  New  England  theology  would  have  for  the 
foundation  stone  of  its  new  structure,  nothing  but  the 
solid  granite  of  reason.  It  looked  askance  at  any  idea 
wThich  had  its  origin  from  that  other  quarter,  and  asked, 
“  Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth  ?  ’’  1  If 
I  am  not  much  mistaken,  we  shall  find  things  which 
must  have  come  from  the  poetical  nature  of  Dr.  Watts. 
As  we  have  seen,  he  earnestly  contends  for  a  condi¬ 
tional  salvation  which  is  sincerely  offered  to  all.  To 
him,  “it  is  hard  to  suppose  that  the  great  God,  who 
is  truth  itself  and  sincere  and  faithful  in  all  his  deal¬ 
ings,  should  call  upon  dying  men  to  trust  in  a  Saviour 
for  eternal  life,  when  this  Saviour  has  not  eternal  life 
intrusted  with  him  to  give  them,  if  they  do  repent.” 
But  strange  as  it  may  seem,  this  is  precisely  what  the 
great  God  does  if  the  language  of  Dr.  Watts  is  ac¬ 
cepted  as  meaning  anything  :  for  (i)  Dr.  Watts  declares 


i  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  1875,  p.  422,  423 


1 82  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

that  Christ  did  not  die  with  an  equal  design  for  al  1 
men.  “  It  seems  evident  to  me  from  several  texts  o^ 
the  word  of  God,  that  Christ  did  not  die  with  an  equal 
design  for  all  men  ;  but  that  there  is  a  special  number 
whom  the  Father  chose  and  gave  to  the  Son,  whose 
salvation  is  absolutely  secured  by  the  death  and  inter¬ 
cession  of  Christ.”  2  In  the  light  of  his  other  decla¬ 
rations  this  is  a  most  remarkable  statement.  Beyond 
all  controversy  Christ  did  die  to  save  the  elect — no 
matter  now  of  whom  that  class  is  composed.  But  if 
he  did  not  die  with  an  equal  design  for  all  men,  then 
surely,  he  did  not  die  to  save  the  non-elect  :  hence  if 
he  did  not  die  to  save  the  non-elect,  for  them,  there  is 
no  salvation  :  consequently  all  talk  about  a  condi¬ 
tional  salvation  offered  to  all  is  mere  logomachy  ;  the 
promises  of  God,  are  after  all,  ‘  ‘  but  a  mere  amusement,  ’  ’ 
“  an  empty  shew.”  If  the  former  affirmations  of  Dr. 
Watts  meant  anything  more  than  the  usual  Calvinistic 
language — ‘‘sufficient  for  all,  but  efficacious  only  for 
the  elect  ”  this  unfortunate  concession  has  made  them 
null  and  void  by  depriving  them  of  all  logical  consist¬ 
ency.  (2)  L,et  11s  now  see  if  he  fares  any  better  as 
regards  the  power  of  the  non-elect  to  repent.  ‘  ‘  All 
the  other  impotence  and  inability  therefore  to  sinners 
to  repent  or  believe,  properly  speaking,  is  but  moral,  or 
seated  chiefly  in  their  wills.  It  is  a  great  disinclina¬ 
tion  or  aversion  in  these  natural  faculties,  to  attend  to, 
learn,  or  practice  the  things  of  God  and  religion,  and 
this  holds  them  fast  in  their  sinful  state  in  a  similar 
way,  as  if  they  were  blind  and  dead  ;  and  I  said  the 
final  event  will  be  the  same,  that  is,  they  will  never 
repent  without  almighty  grace  ;  ”  again,  “  Their  can 


2  “  Works,”  Vol.  III.,  p.  471. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  183 

not  is  their  will  not ;  that  is,  it  is  the  strength  of  their 
aversion  to  Christ,  which  is  a  moral  impotence  or  ina¬ 
bility  to  believe  in  him,  and  the  fault  lies  in  the  will.”3 

Fairly  considered,  I  suppose  that  by  this  Dr. 
Watts  meant  nothing  more  than  that  sinners  can,  but 
will  not  repent  without  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  If  so,  then  those  who  will  not  so  yield  them¬ 
selves  to  the  divine  Spirit  are  lost,  and  constitute  the 
non-elect  whom  God  could  not  save  :  hence  when  Dr. 
Watts  says  :  ‘‘If  the  great  God,  in  a  way  of  sover¬ 
eign  mercy,  gives  some  persons  superior  aids  of  grace 
to  overcome  this  moral  impotence,  and  conquer  this 
aversion  to  God  and  goodness  ;  if  he  effectually  leads, 
inclines,  or  persuades  them  by  his  Spirit  to  repent  and 
believe  in  Christ,  this  does  not  at  all  hinder  the  others 
from  exercising  their  natural  powers  of  understanding 
and  will,  in  believing  and  repenting.  Nor  can  any¬ 
thing  of  their  guilt  and  willful  impenitence  be  imputed 
to  the  blessed  God,  who  is  Lord  of  his  own  favors  and 
gives  or  withholds  where  he  pleases,  and  who  shall 
say  to  him  what  dost  thou  ?  ”  4 

One  of  two  things  must  be  true:  viz.,  (1)  This 
statement  must  be  interpreted  according  to  the  Ar- 
minian  principles  of  Dr.  Watts  ;  or  (2)  If  not,  then 
in  accordance  with  the  well  known  Calvinistic  theo¬ 
logy.  If  the  former  is  accepted,  then  all  that  is  meant 
is,  that  God  gives  superior  aids  of  grace  to  overcome 
this  moral  impotence  according  as  he  foresees  their 
spirit  of  free  acceptance.  If  the* latter,  then  not  only 
is  Dr.  Watts  self- contradictory,  but  the  so-called  ex¬ 
planation  demands  elucidation,  namely,  Why  does 


3  p.  47s. 

4  P-  479- 


184  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

God  withhold  the  superior  aids  of  grace  from  the  non¬ 
elect  ?  is  it  because  the  divine  Intention  restricts 
them  to  the  elect  ?  Then  the  divine  Purpose  never 
sincerely  offered  salvation  to  the  non-elect,  and,  hence, 
as  Dr.  Watts  says,  “It  is  hard  to  conceive  how  the 
great  Governor  of  the  world  can  be  sincere  in  inviting 
and  requiring  sinners  who  are  on  the  brink  of  hell,  to 
cast  themselves  upon  an  empty  word  of  invitation,  a 
mere  shadow  and  appearance  of  support.” 

Let  us  now  consider  the  solution  of  Dr.  Venema  ; 
he  says  :  ‘  ‘  Common  grace,  of  which  even  those  who 
perish  partake,  consists  in  the  offer  of  Christ  made  in 
the  gospel,  an  offer  which  is  intended  by  God  to  be 
made  to  all,  and  in  which  no  one  at  least  is  excluded.” 
Hence  he  maintains  it  is  possible  for  all  men  to  believe 
and  be  saved.  5 

There  is  a  general  predestination  or  “  purpose  on 
the  part  of  God  to  save  those  who  believe — a  purpose 
which  had  reference  also  to  those  who  rejected  it.” 
If  this  be  not  so,  “then  we  can  not  hold  that  God  se¬ 
riously  wills  that  all  men  should  receive  the  proposition 
made  to  them.  If,  however,  he  does  so  will,  then  it 
must  have  reference  to  all  who  read  or  hear  it,  and  the 
purpose  by  which  he  has  ordained  a  connection  be- 
tweet  faith  and  salvation  must  be  general.  We  are 
aware,  indeed,  that  there  is  a  particular  connection 
(between  faith  and  salvation)  which  has  reference  only 
to  the  elect :  yet  this  proposition  is  made  to  all  with¬ 
out  distinction.  For  it  would  be  absurd  to  suppose 
that  God  says  to  all,  Believe  and  ye  shall  be  saved, 
and  yet  that  he  does  not  will  that  they  should  believe 
and  be  saved.  ....  The  simplicity  and  the  truth  of 


5  “  Institutes  of  Theology,”  pp,  298,  303. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  1 85 

God  forbid  us  “  believing  ”  that  God  is  insincere  ;  this 
is  evident  from  Matt,  xxiii.  37,  and  Isa.  v.  4.  “  If 

therefore  we  would  not  impugn  the  sincerity  of  God 
we  must  hold  that  there  is  a  general  decree  by  which 
he  has  purposed  to  save  them  that  believe.  ”  r>  Why 

are  not  the  non-elect  saved  ?  “ . Men  abuse 

the  common  grace  bestowed  upon  them.  If  they 
made  a  right  improvement  of  that,  they  might  enter¬ 
tain  the  hope  of  receiving  special  grace . No 

one  certainly  will  be  condemned  because  he  has  been 
predestinated,  but  because  he  has  neglected  the  method 
of  salvation  which  God  has  disclosed  ;  and,  therefore, 
it  is  unnecessary  to  be  immoderately  anxious  in  re¬ 
gard  to  this  mysterious  doctrine.”  7 

That  the  reader  may  more  readily  grasp  and  com¬ 
prehend  these  affirmations,  I  will  add  the  following 
resume  :  ( 1 )  All  men  are  sincerely  invited  to  be 

saved.  (2)  Faith  is  the  one  condition.  (3)  Thenon- 
eleet  are  condemned  because  they  abuse  common  grace. 
(4)  By  rejecting  this  view  we  impugn  the  divine  sin¬ 
cerity. 

Superficially  considered  this  position  seems  quite 
plausible,  but  a  fair  comparison  of  the  above  state¬ 
ments  with  others  of  Dr.  Venema  will  disclose  glaring 
inconsistencies  and  unequivocal  contradictions.  (1) 
Where  is  the  Scriptural  authority  for  Dr.  Venema’ s 
assertion  that  men  are  condemned  because  they  abuse 
“common  grace”  ?  Where  is  the  passage  in  which 
men  are  told,  Believe  in,  or  rightly  improve  common 
grace,  and  you  ‘  ‘  may  entertain  the  hope  of  receiving 
special  grace  ’  ’  ?  Where  are  the  texts  proving  that 


6  Pages  304,  305,  306. 

7  Pages  303,  295. 


l86  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

there  is  one  way  by  which  the  non-elect  may  entertain 
the  hope  of  being  saved,  and  a  radically  different  way 
by  which  the  elect  are  saved  ?  There  are  no  such 
conditions  in  the  Bible.  The  way  is  one — alike  for 
all — “  Believe  on  the  Tord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt 
be  saved.”  The  Master  before  Dr.  Venema.  He 
says  the  Holy  Spirit  will  condemn  the  world  of  sin, 
because  of  the  abuse  of  common  grace  ?  Oh  no,  but 
“because  they  believe  not  on  me.”  If  faith  is  the 
condition  of  salvation,  then  beyond  all  controversy, 
unbelief  is  the  great  sin  for  which  men  are  condemned. 
Were  it  not  for  the  support  of  a  pet  theory,  our  author 
would  never  have  thought  of  this  unscriptural  dis¬ 
tinction  of  common  and  special  grace  :  but  (2)  Dr. 
Venema  himself  does  not  really  believe,  nor  teach 
that  the  generic  reason  why  men  are  rejected  is  be¬ 
cause  they  abuse  common  grace.  Generically  their 
condemnation  is  a  just  act  of  sovereignty  irrespective 
of  anything  which  they  have  done.  “If  it  be  asked 
why  God  ordained  them  to  destruction  as  reprobation 
is  usually  understood,  we  answer,  because  he  foresaw 
that  they  would  not  believe.”  What  !  a  Calvinist 
basing  the  divine  decrees  upon  foresight  ?  This  is 
Arminianism.  Wait  dear  reader  and  see.  “If  it  be 
asked  on  what  foundation  this  foreknowledge  rests,  we 
say  on  God’s  denying  them  particular  grace.”  8  That 
is,  God  has  ordained  the  non-elect  to  eternal  destruc¬ 
tion  because  he  foresees,  because  he  has  determined 
that  they  shall  not  repent.  This  is  the  gist  of  the 
matter  as  considered  by  our  author  ;  while  believing 
in  a  certain  order  of  the  decrees,  Dr.  Venema  affirms 
that  “God  by  a  single  mental  act  comprehends  the 


8  Page  319. 


AND  MAN'S  MORAL  NATURE. 


i87 


whole.”  “  The  decree,  therefore,  is  one.”  “  The  act 
of  the  decree  is  absolute.  It  is  not  uncertain  or  doubt¬ 
ful.  It  is  not  suspended  on  any  condition  on  the  part 
of  man.”  “God  determined  what  the  creatures 
wTould  do,  and  what  their  condition  would  be,  who 
should  believe,  and  who  should  not,  and  that  his  de¬ 
cree  regarding  them  and  everything  relating  to  them 
was  absolute.”  9 

This  is  Calvin’s  doctrine  little  differently  expressed. 
Doubtless  there  is  a  large  scope  for  the  non-elect  when 
God  has  absolutely  determined  who  shall  believe  : 
hence,  (3)  God  has  never  really  offered  salvation  to 
the  non-elect.  “  .  .  .  .  God  does  not  design  by 
what  is  called  a  positive  act,  that  all  shall  believe.  In 
this  case  all  would  believe . He  wills  only  neg¬ 

atively,  inasmuch  as  he  does  not  will  that  any  should 
not  believe.”1  A  strange  statement.  The  decrees 
are  really  one.  From  one  standpoint  they  are  abso¬ 
lute  and  positive  :  from  another  view  they  are  only 
negative.  But  forgetting  for  a  moment  the  self-con¬ 
tradiction,  how  is  it  possible  to  call  God’s  determina¬ 
tion  concerning  the  11011-elect,  in  any  sense,  negative  ? 
There  are  but  two  methods  of  procedure  :  God  may 
directly  influence  the  non-elect  so  that  they  will  refuse 
to  believe  and  repent.  This  was  the  view  held  by 
Calvin  :  and  he  waxes  warm  as  he  contemplates 
the  other  view,  calling  it  “a  silly  cavil.”  To  the 
same  effect  speaks  Dr.  Emmons  :  “  It  is  often  thought 
and  said  that  nothing  more  was  necessary  011  God’s 
part  in  order  to  fit  Pharaoh  for  destruction,  than  barely 
to  leave  him  to  himself.  But  God  knew  that  no  ex- 


9  Tages  287,  289,  290. 
1  Page  301. 


1 88  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

ternal  means  and  motives  would  be  sufficient  of  them¬ 
selves  to  form  his  moral  character.  He  determined, 
therefore,  to  operate  on  his  heart  itself  and  cause  him 
to  put  forth  certain  evil  exercises  in  the  view  of  cer¬ 
tain  external  motives.”  2 

The  other  method  has  been  sufficiently  indicated 
by  the  above  condemnations.  It  is  simply  that  of 
non-interference.  The  non-elect  are  in  hopeless  bond¬ 
age  :  their  eternal  destruction  is  certain,  unless  God 
gives  them  saving  faith  and  repentance.  This,  how¬ 
ever,  he  has  determined,  from  all  eternity  not  to  do  : 
hence  they  can  not  be  saved.  Tet  us  hear  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Dr.  Shedd  :  ‘  ‘  The  unconditional  decree,  in 

reference  to  the  11011-elect,  according  to  Augustine,  is 
one  of  preterition,  or  omission,  merely.  The  repro¬ 
bating  decree  is  not  accompanied,  as  the  electing 
decree  is,  with  any  direct  divine  efficiency  to  secure 
the  result.  And  there  is  no  need  of  any  :  for  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Augustinian  anthropology,  there  is  no  pos¬ 
sibility  of  self-recovery  from  a  voluntary  apostasy, 
and  consequently  the  simple  passing  by  and  leaving 
of  the  sinful  soul  to  itself  renders  its  perdition  as  cer¬ 
tain  as  if  it  were  brought  about  by  a  direct  divine 
efficiency.”  3 

But  when  God  passes  by  the  11011-elect,  has  he  not 
determined  to  do  so  ?  Yes,  verily,  from  all  eternity. 
But  is  not  a  determination  not  to  save,  a  positive  act 
of  the  divine  will  ?  So  it  would .  and  does  seem  to  all 
but  a  few  so-called  ‘ 1  mild  Calvinists.  ’  ’ 

There  is  something  more  which  I  am  sure  will  in¬ 
terest  the  reader.  O11  one  page  we  are  informed  that 


2  “  Works.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  392. 

3  “  Hist,  of  Christ.  Doc  ’  Vol.  II.,  pp.  70,  72. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  1 89 

God  has  a  general  decree  or  purpose, — purpose  please 
observe, — “  to  save  those  who  believe,  a  purpose  which 
had  reference  to  those  who  rejected  it.”  Yes,  this 
purpose  is  so  real  that  our  author  insists  that  “  God 
seriously  wills  that  all  men  should  receive  the  propo¬ 
sition  made  to  them  ’  ’ :  that  is,  should  receive  salvation. 
But  in  a  few  moments  we  are  gravely  told  that  ‘  ‘  God 
does  not  design  by  what  is  called  a  positive  act  that 
all  shall  believe.”  Not  at  all :  simply  that  God  has 
not  willed  “  that  any  should  not  believe.”  We  have 
now  obtained  a  new  synonym  for  “  seriously  wills.” 
It  means  a  “negative  act  of  the  will.”  God  seriously 
wills  that  all  should  receive  salvation,  but  God  does 
not  design  that  all  shall  believe  :  hence,  says  our  con¬ 
sistent  theologian,  “God  has  purposed  by  a  positive 
act  of  his  will,  not  only  to  condemn  unbelievers,  but 
also  to  withhold  from  some  sufficient  grace,  on  which 
withholding,  as  we  shall  see,  when  we  come  to  treat 
of  the  doctrine  of  reprobation,  depends  the  final  ruin 
of  the  impenitent.”  * 

This  is  good  Calvinism.  I  rejoice  to  see  it :  here 
we  are  told  that  the  final  ruin  of  the  11011-elect  depends 
upon  the  withholding  of  sufficient  grace,  which  with¬ 
holding  God  has  purposed  by  a  positive  act  of  his 
will :  yet  he  seriously  wills  that  all  should  believe  and 
be  saved. 

(4)  Bet  us  now  see  how  Dr.  Venema  justifies  God 
from  the  charge  of  partiality  and  injustice  :  “In  con¬ 
ferring  grace  he  may  act  according  to  his  own  pleasure, 
for  none  can  lay  claim  to  what  he  bestows.  In  this 
matter  he  acts  as  supreme  Cord,  who  may  do  what  he 
will  with  his  own,  and  not  as  a  Judge  who  has  a  regard 


4  Pages  277,  278. 


✓ 


190  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

to  the  merit  or  demerit  oi  those  with  whom  he  has  to 
do.  In  the  latter  case  there  would  be  some  ground 
for  the  charge  of  partiality  and  injustice  ;  but  in  the 
former  there  is  none.”  5  The  following  points  are 
worthy  of  special  notice  :  ( a )  If  we  consider  God  as  a 
Judge,  who  has  regard  to  the  merit  or  the  demerit  of 
those  with  whom  he  has  to  do,  there  is  some  ground 
for  the  charge  of  partiality  and  injustice,  (b)  To 
escape  this  charge,  Dr.  Venema  tell  us  that  we  must 
consider  God  as  the  Supreme  Lord,  who  may  do  what 
he  will  with  his  own.  To  this  I  reply  that  it  is  im¬ 
possible  to  separate  the  character  of  God  into  parts, 
and  say  a  certain  act  is  right  because  it  is  done  by 
him  as  supreme  Lord.  Whatever  he  does,  is  done 
by  the  divine  Being  as  such.  No  man,  I  care  not 
what  his  official  position  may  be,  has  any  right  to 
commit  a  wrong,  and  then  say — as  an  excuse  for  that 
wrong — “  I  did  it  as  a  King,  or  an  Emperor,  or  as  the 
President.”  An  outraged  public  opinion  would  very 
soon  bring  such  an  offender  to  his  senses,  and  the 
condemnation  would  be  the  heavier  because  of  the 
shameless  audacity  of  the  culprit.  The  same  general 
law  rules  in  the  sphere  of  ethics  divine  as  well  as 
human.  Without  entering  into  an  examination  of  the 
vastly  important  question — reserved  for  another  chapter 
— Is  anything  right  because  God  does  it  ?  let  it  suffice 
for  the  present  to  say  that  the  distinction  of  our  author 
is  wholly  without  foundation,  and  manifestly  absurd. 

But  again  ;  (c)  In  the  Scriptures  God  is  represented 
as  a  Judge  who  does,  and  is  to  try,  by  Jesus  Christ,  the 
actions  and  hearts  of  all  men.  Abraham’s  exclama¬ 
tion,  “  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right  ?  ” 


5  Page  229. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  igl 

(Gen.  xviii.  25)  unmistakably  shows  the  native  con¬ 
viction  of  the  race  that  God  is  a  judge  as  well  as  a 
Father  :  hence  as  a  fact,  God  through  his  well-beloved 
Son  is  continually  judging  “  of  the  thoughts  and 
intents  of  the  heart”  (Heb.  iv.  12).  “For  the  Son 
of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father,  with  his 
angels  and  then  he  shall  reward  every  man  according 
to  his  works”  (Matt.  xvi.  24).  He  who  could  say 
to  the  Israelites,  ‘  ‘  Is  not  my  way  equal  ’  ’  is  infinitely 
above  such  petty  subterfuges  as  adopted  by  Dr. 
Venema. 

But  lastly,  (d)  Our  author  himself,  confesses  that 
God  generally  adheres  to  the  office  of  Judge  :  he  says 
it  is  right  in  God  to  withhold  special  grace  from  those 
who  abuse  common  grace  “  because  he  renders  to 

every  man  according  to  his  works . We  can 

not  now  enter  upon  an  explanation  of  this.  But  we 
know  generally  that  God  will  in  his  dealings  .strictly 
adhere  to  this  rule.  ’  ’  (i 

If  God  strictly  adheres  to  the  rule  of  dealing  with 
men  according  to  their  works,  then  he  certainly  has 
‘  ‘  a  regard  to  the  merit  or  demerit  of  those  with  whom 
he  has  to  do  ”  :  hence  God  does  certainly  act  as  a 
Judge,  and  consequently  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  under 
consideration  is  open  to  the  charge  that  God  is  partial 
and  unjust,  Dr.  Venema’s  words  being  the  criterion. 

In  conclusion,  it  only  remains  to  notice  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  Dr.  Venema’s  translator,  Rev.  Alexander 
W.  Brown.  “After  the  lengthy  and  ingenious  dis¬ 
cussion  by  the  author  on  the  subject  of  predestination, 
we  confess  we  feel  ourselves  just  where  we  were.  In 
attempting  to  reconcile  the  doctrine  of  election  with 


6 


P-  301. 


192  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

the  universality  of  the  gospel  offer,  and  with  the  ex¬ 
pressed  unwillingness  of  God  that  men  should  perish, 
he  has  only  shifted  the  difficulty  ;  he 'has  not  removed 
it.”  7 

In  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Brown,  the  doctrine  of  abso¬ 
lute  predestination  must  be  believed  even  if  it  can  not 
be  reconciled  with  the  freeness  of  the  gospel  offer. 8 

Get  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  vindication 
adduced  by  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge.  '‘In  the  general  offers 
of  the  gospel  God  exhibits  a  salvation  sufficient  for 
and  exactly  adapted  to  all,  and  sincerely  offered  to 
every  one  without  exception,  and  he  unfolds  all  the 
motives  of  duty,  hope,  fear,  etc,,  which  ought  to  in¬ 
duce  every  one  to  accept  it,  solemnly  promising  that 
whoever  comes,  in  no  wise  shall  be  cast  out.  The 
gospel  is  for  all,  election  is  a  special  grace  in  addition 
to  that  offer.  The  non-elect  may  come  if  they  will. 
The  elect  will  come  ;  ”  again.  “A  salvation  all-suffi¬ 
cient  and  exactly  adapted  to  his  necessities  is  honestly 
offered  to  every  man  to  whom  the  gospel  comes,  and 
in  every  case  it  is  his,  if  he  believes  ;  and  in  no  case 
does  anything  prevent  his  believing  other  than  his  own 
evil  disposition.” 

Once  more  Dr.  Hodge  says,  “A  bona  fide  offer  of 
the  gospel,  therefore,  is  to  be  made  to  all  men.  1st.  Be¬ 
cause  the  satisfaction  rendered  to  the  law  is  sufficient 
for  all  men.  2d.  Because  it  is  exactly  adapted  to  the 
redemption  of  all.  3d.  Because  God  designs  that 
whosoever  exercises  faith  in  Christ  shall  be  saved  by 
him.  The  design  of  Christ’s  death  being  to  secure 
the  salvation  of  his  own  people,  incidentally  to  the 


7  p.  334,  note. 

8  Ibid. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


193 


accomplishment  of  that  end,  it  comprehends  the  offer 
of  that  salvation  freely  and  honestly  to  all  men  on  the 
condition  of  their  faith.  No  man  is  lost  for  the  want 
of  an  atonement,  or  because  there  is  any  barrier  in  the 
way  of  his  salvation  than  his  own  most  free  and 
wicked  will.”  9 

I  doubt  not  the  reader  is  now  in  possession  of  such 
facts  as  will  enable  him  to  judge  of  the  Scriptural 
character  of  Dr.  Hodge’s  language.  Omitting  one 
clause,  these  quotations  seem  to  express  the  very  ideas 
of  the  Bible  and  for  which  I  am  contending,  namely, 

(1)  A  bo?/ a  fide  offer  of  salvation  is  made  to  all  men. 

(2)  On  the  condition  that  the  individual  soul  will 
believe  in  the  Saviour.  (3)  There  is  no  barrier  in  the 
way  of  any  man’s  salvation,  except  his  own  free  and 
wicked  will.  These  three  points  are  identical  with 
those  of  Dr.  Hodge,  and  yet  my  next  affirmation — 
which  is  simply  a  legitimate,  and  necessary  deduction 
from  the  foregoing — will  necessitate  our  separation; 
namely,  God  saves  all  who  can  be  saved.  Tike  all 
Calvinists,  Dr.  Hodge  will  instantly  reply,  This  de¬ 
prives  God  of  his  sovereignty,  and  conditions  the 
decrees  on  the  acts  of  the  creatures. 

The  truth  is,  Dr.  Hodge  does  not  mean  what  his 
language  fairly  implies,  what  the  average  reader  im¬ 
agines  such  words  must  signify.  This  charge  of  am¬ 
biguity  I  shall  now  attempt  to  substantiate.  Let  the 
reader  carefully  notice  (1)  That  Dr.  Hodge  asserts  that 
there  is  no  barrier  in  the  way  of  any  man’s  salvation, 
except  “  his  own  most  free  and  wicked  will.”  If  this 
be  true,  then  every  man  has  a  fair  chance  to  be  saved. 
To  say  of  a  young  man  that  there  is  no  barrier  in  the 


9  “  Outlines  of  Theology,”  pp.  182,  317,  316. 


194  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

way  of  his  obtaining  a  collegiate  education,  except  his 
own  most  free  and  lazy  will,  would  be  generally  and 
properly  understood  as  signifying  that  he  had  a  good 
opportunity  for  securing  a  classical  education.  I  do 
not  suppose  that  the  underlying  truth  of  the  assertion 
will  be  fundamentally  changed  when  predicated  of 
salvation,  and  yet,  Dr.  Hodge  will  now  deny  that  all 
men  have  a  full  opportunity  of  being  saved  through 
Christ.  Here  are  his  very  words  :  “  There  is  a  lurk¬ 
ing  feeling  among  many  that  somehow  God  owes  to 
all  men  at  least  a  full  opportunity  of  being  saved 
through  Christ.  If  so,  there  was  no  grace  in  Christ’s 
dying.  ‘  I  reject,’  says  Wesley,  ‘  the  assertion  that 
God  might  justly  have  passed  by  me  and  all  men,  as  a 
bold,  precarious  assertion  utterly  unsupported  by  holy 
Scripture.’  Then  we  say,  of  course  the  gospel  was  of 
debt,  not  of  grace.”  1 

Denying  that  all  men  have  a  full  opportunity  of 
being  saved  through  Christ,  Dr.  Hodge  flatly  contra¬ 
dicts  his  former  assertion  that  no  man  is  lost . 

because  there  is  any  barrier  in  the  way  of  his  salvation 
than  his  own  most  free  and  wicked  will.  ’  ’ 

(2)  The  so-called  condition  of  salvation  by  which 
Dr.  Hodge  seeks  to  make  it  appear  that  the  non-elect 
may  be  saved — if  they  will  only  believe — is  no  condi¬ 
tion.  Like  many  other  Calvinists,  Dr.  Hodge  expati¬ 
ates  upon  the  possibilities  of  the  11011-elect  being  saved  ; 
he  distinctly  says,  “The  non-elect  may  come  if  they 
will  ;  ”  he  says  God  ‘  ‘  unfolds  all  the  motives  of  duty, 
hope,  fear,  etc.,  which  ought  to  induce  everyone  to 
accept  it.”  “A  salvation  all-sufficient  and  exactly 

1  p.  182.  Such  a  false  theology  is  sure  to  increase  the  ranks  of 
infidelity. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


195 


adapted  to  his  necessities  is  honestly  offered  to  every 
man  to  whom  the  gospel  comes,  and  in  every  case  it  is 
his  if  he  believes.” 

Thus  Dr.  Hodge  is  constantly  seeking  to  make  the 
impression  that  the  non-elect  may  believe,  and  conse¬ 
quently  if  they  do  not,  it  is  their  own  fault.  Such  is 
not  the  fact  however.  The  truth  is,  the  non-elect  can 
not  possibly  exercise  faith  and  repentance,  and  there¬ 
fore,  can  not  be  saved.  They  begin  life  with  their  wills 
inclined  to  sin,  they  are  so  depraved  that  without  a 
miraculous  change  wrought  in  them  by  God,  they  can 
only  and  forever  become  worse,  and  consequently  it  is 
rather  sarcastic  in  Dr.  Hodge  to  write  so  gravely  that 
the  non-elect  shall  be  saved  if  they  will  only  believe. 
Does  the  reader  desire  the  proof  of  this  ?  It  is  at  hand, 
and  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Hodge.  “  The  depraved  will 
of  man  can  not  originate  holy  affections  and  volitions 
because  the  presence  of  a  positively  holy  principle  is 
necessary  to  constitute  them  holy.  .  .  .  There  remains 
no  recuperative  element  in  the  soul.  Man  can  only 
and  forever  become  worse  without  a  miraculous  recre¬ 
ation.  .  .  .  But  he  has  lost  all  ability  to  obey  the  law 
of  God,  because  his  evil  heart  is  not  subject  to  that 

law,  neither  can  he  change  it . But  the  moral 

state  of  these  faculties  is  such,  because  of  the  perverted 
disposition  of  their  hearts,  that  they  are  utterly  unable 
either  to  will  or  to  do  what  the  law  requires.  This 
inability  is  ‘  natural  ’  since  it  is  innate  and  constitu¬ 
tional.  It  is  ‘  moral  ’  since  it  does  not  consist  either 
in  disease,  or  in  any  physical  defect  in  the  soul,  nor 
merely  in  the  inordinate  action  of  the  bodily  affections, 
but  in  the  corrupt  character  of  the  governing  disposi¬ 
tions  of  the  heart.  This  inability  is  total,  and  as  far 


196  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

as  human  strength  goes,  irremedial.  .  .  .  That  repent¬ 
ance,  faith,  trust,  hope,  love,  etc.,  are  purely  and 
simply  the  sinner’s  own  acts  ;  but  as  such,  are  possible 
to  him  only  in  virtue  of  the  change  wrought  in  the 
moral  condition  of  his  faculties  by  the  recreative  power 
of  God.”  2 

These  extracts  are  sufficient  to  show  the  beautiful 
consistency  of  Dr.  Hodge.  The  non-elect  are  blame¬ 
worthy  for  not  accepting  Jesus  Christ,  and  yet  they 
can  not  exercise  faith,  hope,  love  and  repentance  until 
the  change  is  wrought  by  the  power  of  God.  And 
this  is  the  grand  ‘  ‘  condition  ’  ’  by  which  the  non-elect 
are  to  be  saved.  No  wonder  that  Luther  considered 
the  many  declarations  in  which  God  exhorts  man  to 
keep  his  commandments,  as  ironical,  “as  if  a  father 
were  to  say  to  his  child,  ‘  Come,’  while  he  knows  that 
he  can  not  come.” 

(3)  Why  does  God  refuse  to  give  the  non-elect  a 
full  opportunity  to  be  saved  ?  Inasmuch  as  saving 
faith  is  bestowed  upon  the  elect — thus  putting  the 
condition  of  salvation  within  their  reach — why  does 
God  withhold  it  from  the  non-elect  ?  Why  should  he 
confer  it  upon  one  class,  and  not  upon  the  other  ?  To 
say  that  it  is  because  of  the  rejection  of  the  Saviour,  is 
to  beg  the  very  question  in  dispute.  To  say  that  a 
blind  man  who  has  never  seen  the  sun  is  worthy  of 
condemnation  because  he  will  not  open  his  eyes  and 
look  at  the  glorious  orb,  may  be  consistent  with  Cal¬ 
vinism,  but  is  contrary  to  the  universal  sense  of  justice. 
Waiving  all  questions  relative  to  the  final  condemna¬ 
tion  of  the  non-elect,  why  should  God  refuse  them  “  a 
full  opportunity  ”  to  be  saved  ?  Manifestly  there  is  no 


2  Pages  237,252,  266,  267,  336. 


And  man’s  moral  nature.  197 

reason,  for  prior  to  the  bestowment  of  saving  faith,  the 
elect  are  no  better  than  the  11011-elect.  Hence  there  is 
no  reason  why  the  non-elect  do  not  have  “  a  full  oppor¬ 
tunity  of  being  saved  ”  beyond  the  good  pleasure  of 
God.  Says  Dr.  Hodge  “  In  respect  to  its  negative  ele¬ 
ment,  reprobation  is  simply  sovereign,  .since  those 
passed  over  were  no  worse  than  those  elected,  and  the 
simple  reason  both  for  the  choosing  and  for  the  passing 
over  was  the  sovereign  good  pleasure  of  God.”  3 

This  is  another  gem  in  the  theology  of  Dr.  Hodge. 
All  men  have  not  “a  full  opportunity  of  being  saved  ” 
simply  because  of  the  good  pleasure  of  God — the  non¬ 
elect  are  worthy  of  condemnation  for  rejecting  “  such 
a  Saviour,”  when  at  the  same  time  God  withholds 
from  them  the  power  by  which  they  may  accept  the 
salvation  which  “is  exactly  adapted  to  the  redemption 
of  all.” 

(4)  The  offer  of  salvation  to  the  non-elect  is  a  stu¬ 
pendous  farce.  Dr.  Hodge  earnestly  contends  for  the  sin¬ 
cerity  of  the  gospel  offer  to  the  non-elect.  Tet  the 
reader  turn  back  a  few  pages,  and  such  expressions  as 
these  will  constantly  meet  the  eye.  “  In  the  general 
offers  of  the  gospel  God  exhibits  a  salvation  sufficient 
for  and  exactly  adapted  to  all,  and  sincerely  offered  to 
every  one  without  exception.”  “  A  salvation  all-suf¬ 
ficient  and  exactly  adapted  to  his  necessities  is  hon¬ 
estly  offered  to  every  man.”  “  A  bona  fide  offer  of  the 
gospel,  therefore,  is  to  be  made  to  all  men.”  Speak¬ 
ing  of  the  design  of  Christ’s  death,  he  says,  “  It  com¬ 
prehends  the  offer  of  salvation  freely  and  honestly  to 
all  men  on  the  condition  of  their  faith.” 


3  Page  183. 


198  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

I  do  not  know  what  peculiar  meaning  Dr.  Hodge 
attributes  to  such  words  as  “  sincere,”  “  honest,”  and 
‘  ‘  bona  fide ,  ’  ’  but  I  am  sure  that  the  usual  signification 
has  no  place  in  the  above  quotations,  because  ( a )  If 
God  sincerely  wished  the  salvation  of  the  non-elect, 
he  would  give  them  at  least  “  a  full  opportunity  of 
being  saved.”  (£)  He  would  also  exert  his  power  in 
their  behalf,  for  Dr.  Hodge  informs  us  “it  rests  only 
with  God  himself  to  save  all,  many,  few,  or  none.” 
(e)  God  can  not  be  very  sincere  in  offering  salvation 
to  all  on  the  condition  of  faith,  for,  says  Dr.  Hodge, 
“  God  never  has  promised  to  enable  every  man  to  be¬ 
lieve.”  Not  having  promised  to  give  every  man  “a 
full  opportunity  of  being  saved”  and  knowing  that 
without  this  “  full  opportunity  ”  the  non-elect  can  not 
possibly  be  saved.  I  doubt  not  the  gospel  offer  is  ex¬ 
tremely  sincere  and  honest  on  the  part  of  him  who 
has  declared,  “  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and 
the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts,  and  let  him  return 
unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon  him  ;  and 
to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon  ”  (Isa.  lv. 
7).  But  (d)  The  gospel  offers  can  not  be  sincere,  for 
God  has  eternally  purposed  that  the  non-elect  shall 
not  be  saved.  Says  Dr.  Hodge,  “  The  design  of  God 
must  have  been  determined  by  his  motive.  If  his  mo¬ 
tive  was  peculiar  love  to  his  own  people  then  his  de¬ 
sign  must  have  been  to  secure  their  salvation,  and  not 
that  of  all  men.  As  proved  from  Scripture  .  .  .  . 
God,  in  his  eternal  decree,  elected  his  own  people  to 
everlasting  life,  determining  to  leave  all  others  to  the 
just  consequences  of  their  own  sins.  Consequently 
he  gave  his  Son  to  die  for  these.  He  could  not  con¬ 
sistently  give  his  Son  to  die  for  the  purpose  of  saving 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURR. 


199 


the  rest . He  designed  to  save  those  whom  he 

does  save.”  4 

Here  we  reach  the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter. 
The  doctrine  of  a  limited  Atonement  now  stands  out 
in  all  its  beauty  and  consistency.  While  God  never 
designed  to  save  the  11011-elect,  while  he  has  eternally 
decreed  to  leave  them  without  “a  full  opportunity  of 
being  saved,”  while  Jesus  Christ  did  not  die  for  the 
purpose  of  saving  them,  yet  at  the  same  time  Dr. 
Hodge  would  have  us  believe  that  these  most  tantaliz¬ 
ing  offers  of  salvation — without  a  Saviour— are  “  sin¬ 
cere,”  “honest,”  “ bona  fide." 

One  is  at  a  loss  to  know  which  deserves  the  more 
pity,  the  credulity  of  Dr.  Hodge  in  supposing  that  his 
fallacies  would  be  accepted  for  truth,  or  his  utter  disre¬ 
gard  for  the  legitimate  meaning  of  language. 

An  examination  of  the  solution  given  by  Dr.  Nehe- 
miah  Adams  will  conclude  this  section:  “  But  we 
will  meet  the  difficulty  in  the  most  explicit  manner ; 
as  to  any  injustice  toward  those  who  are  not  made 
willing  to  repent  let  us  suppose  the  following  case  : 
A  teacher  is  remonstrating  with  some  pupils  in  cir¬ 
cumstances  where  remonstrance  seems  the  only  suit¬ 
able  means  of  influencing  them.  Everything  is  said 
which  a  reasonable  being  would  think  necessary  to 
effect  the  purpose,  or  to  make  the  resistance  inexcusa¬ 
ble.  All  is  vain.  There  is  an  unanimous  rejection  of 
the  teacher’s  endeavors.  I11  a  private  way  he  calls 
one  and  another  to  him,  one  by  onfe,  and  plies  him 
with  further  considerations,  appeals  to  things  in  his 
private  history  and  circumstances,  and  he  gains  the 
submission  of  a  number.  This  is  followed  by  some 


4  Pages  313,  314. 


200  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

great  advantage  which  makes  these  few  the  objects  of 
envy.  Now  let  us  imagine  the  obstinate  and  persever¬ 
ing  part  of  the  company  drawing  near  to  upbraid  the 
teacher,  saying,  ‘  Had  you  employed  further  influences 
with  us,  we  too,  might  have  yielded.  On  you  be  the 
blame  of  our  loss.’  They  would  be  justly  scorned  for 
their  impertinence.  The  teacher  did  all  for  them 
which,  as  reasonable  beings,  they  could  properly  ask 
or  expect.  He  sincerely  desired  the  submission  of  all. 
It  might  have  been  as  easy  for  him  to  have  subdued 
them  all,  one  by  one,  as  to  have  secured  the  assent  of 
the  few.  He  exercised  sovereignty  election  in  what 
he  did.  He  did  not  hate  any,  he  did  not  prefer  their 
continual  rebellion,  though  he  chose  not  to  interpose 
with  them  all,  but  to  leave  some  under  the  influences 
of  truth,  reason  and  their  consciences.  True,  he  saw 
that  no  one  would  turn  without  some  special  act  on 
his  part.”  6 

I  have  quoted  at  some  length  in  order  that  the 
reader  might  have  the  precise  language  of  Dr.  Adams. 
It  is  less  involved  than  that  of  Dr.  Venema,  and  pos¬ 
sibly  may  be  more  consistent.  L,et  us  see.  Dr.  Adams 
has  chosen  the  analogical  method  :  As  I  said  concern¬ 
ing  the  argument  of  President  Dabney,  so  I  remark 
here  that  all  I  can  fairly  ask  of  Dr.  Adams  is,  that  his 
analogy  be  true  in  its  primary  application.  If  this  be 
so,  then  I  readily  grant  his  position  has  some  degree 
of  plausibility.  But  if  this  be  not  so,  if  the  analogy 
is  radically  at  fault  in  that  it  does  not  afford  a  just  com¬ 
parison  between  the  respective  parties,  then  that  which 
is  built  upon  it  must  be  considered  null  and  void. 
That  such  is  the  actual  case  I  now  propose  to  demon¬ 


s'1  Lvetiings  with  the  Doctrines,”  pp.  253,  254. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE-  201 

strate  ;  viz.,  (i)  It  is  assumed  that  the  scholars  could 
have  obeyed  the  teacher  ;  otherwise  they  were  not 
guilty.  But  the  non- elect  have  no  such  power. 
Speaking  of  election,  Dr.  Adams  says,  “God  has  re¬ 
solved  that  he  will  rescue  a  part  of  mankind  from  per¬ 
dition  by  persuading  and  enabling  them  to  do  their 
duty.’’0  If  God  enables  the  elect  to  do  their  duty, 
then  before  that  aid  was  given  they  could  not  have 
done  their  duty,  in  which  position  the  non-elect  not 
only  are,  but  there  they  forever  remain.  Dr.  Adams 
distinctly  teaches  that  faith  is  a  gift  of  God  withheld 
from  the  non-elect,  and  therefore  all  remarks  concern¬ 
ing  them  which  are  based  upon  the  ability  of  the  schol¬ 
ars  are  manifestly  inadequate  : 7  hence  (2 )  The  analogy 
is  defective  in  that  it  assumes  that  God,  like  the  teacher, 
has  said  and  done  everything  “which  a  reasonable 
being  would  think  necessary  to  effect  the  purpose  or  to 
make  the  resistance  inexcusable.”  This  may  be  true 
concerning  the  scholars  :  if  it  is,  then  as  I  have  said, 
it  is  based  on  the  ability  of  the  scholars  to  yield. 
Granting  this,  the  scholars  were  doubly  guilty  because 
they  not  only  refused  to  do  that  which  they  knew  was 
right,  but  they  also  shut  out  the  additional  light  af¬ 
forded  by  the  counsels  of  their  teacher.  But  this 
utterly  fails  when  applied  to  the  non-elect.  Having 
no  power  to  believe,  it  is  idle  talk  to  say  God  says 
everything  ‘  ‘  which  a  reasonable  being  would  think 
necessary  to  effect  the  purpose,  or  to  make  the  resist¬ 
ance  inexcusable.”  God  requires  faith  of  them:  but 
faith  is  impossible  unless  conferred  by  the  Spirit.  As 
a  reasonable  Being  God  knows  this,  and  therefore  it  is 


6  p.  246. 

7  See  p.  257. 


202  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

not  true  that  “everything  is  said  which  a  reasonable 
being  would  think  necessary.”  He  absolutely  knows 
that  nothing  will  suffice  “to  effect  the  purpose  ’  ’  save  the 
gift  of  faith,  which  for  certain  reasons  has  been  withheld. 

(3)  One  is  at  a  loss  to  understand  why  the  teacher 
did  not  secure  the  obedience  of  all.  It  was  not 
because  he  could  not,  for  Dr.  Adams  has  informed 
us  that  “  it  might  have  been  as  easy  for  him  to  have 
subdued  them  all,  one  by  one,  as  to  have  secured  the 
assent  of  the  few.”  Certainly,  if  the  obedience  of  one 
or  more  was  intrinsically  good,  I  fail  to  see  why  that 
good  would  have  been  decreased,  if  the  obedience  of 
all  had  been  secured.  Surely  it  would  not  have  hurt 
any  one  ;  and,  judging  from  my  limited  knowledge  of 
schools,  I  should  think  that  both  teachers  and  scholars 
would  have  been  in  a  position  to  have  accomplished 
more  and  better  work.  • 

Was  it  not  because  the  teacher  was  better  pleased 
to  have  some  of  the  scholars  continue  in  disobedience, 
and  therefore  did  not  desire  to  have  all  yield  to  his 
very  reasonable  arguments  ?  I  beg  the  reader  to  dis¬ 
miss  the  thought  at  once.  It  must  not  be  entertained. 
Such  a  suggestion  is  a  libel  on  the  character  of  this 
very  humane  teacher.  Besides,  has  not  Dr.  Adams 
distinctly  told  us  that  this  exceptionally  benevolent 
teacher  “sincerely  desired  the  submission  of  all;”  that 
“he  did  not  hate  any,  he  did  not  prefer  their  contin¬ 
ual  rebellion.”  Now  Webster  defines  the  word  “sin¬ 
cere  ”  as  follows  :  “  Being  in  reality  what  it  appears 

to  be  ;  having  a  character  which  corresponds  with  the 
appearance  ;  not  simulated  or  falsely  assumed  ;  true  ; 
real.”  Hence  if  Dr.  Adams  has  correctly  defined  the 
character  of  this  teacher  we  are  sure  that  he  really 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


203 


desired  to  secure  the  obedience  of  all  his  scholars. 
This  being  so,  then,  while  I  confess  that  this  teacher 
is  the  strangest  of  all  human  beings — for  whoever  saw 
a  person,  having  full  power  to  confer  an  inestimable 
blessing  upon  others,  and  sincerely  desiring  the  same, 
refusing  to  exercise  that  power  ?  I  say  while  this 
teacher’s  conduct  is  profoundly  inexplicable,  of  one 
thing  I  am  certain,  viz.,  that  he  had  not  secretly  de¬ 
termined  that  the  finally  obstinate  scholars  should  not 
yield,  in  any  circumstances,  to  his  so-called  reasonable 
arguments:  for  upon  this  supposition  his,,  character 
would  not  correspond  with  the  appearance,”  which 
correspondence,  according  to  Webster,  is  necessary  to 
be  sincere.  We  are  now  in  a  position  to  see  the  radi¬ 
cal  defect  of  Dr.  Adam’s  analogy  :  for 

(4)  God,  unlike  the  teacher,  has  positively  deter¬ 
mined  that  the  non-eleet  shall  not  be  saved.  Dr. 
Adams,  like  many  others  whose  views  we  have  consid¬ 
ered,  is  guilty  of  unequivocal  self-contradictions.  Of 
the  non-elect  he  says,  “  No  injustice  is  done  to  those 
w7ho  are  left  :  salvation  is  consistently  offered  to  them, 
and  their  state  is  no  worse  than  though  all  like  them 
had  perished.”  8  But  if  salvation  is  offered  to  all, 
then  the  offer  is  intimately  related  to  the  divine  Will 
and  Purpose.  It  is  a  bona  fide  offer,  or  it  is  nothing. 
If  the  former,  then  it  is  simply  impossible  that  God 
should  have  determined  from  eternity,  irrespective  of 
the  divine  foresight  of  men’s  rejection,  that  the  non¬ 
elect  should  not  be  saved.  But  this  is  precisely  what 
God  has  done  if  we  accept  the  statements  of  Dr. 
Adams:  for,  in  the  first  place,  God  has  never  resolved  to 
save  all.  “  God  has  resolved  that  he  will  rescue  a  part 


204  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

of  mankind  from  perdition  by  persuading  and  enabling 
them  to  do  their  duty.”  In  the  second  place,  “Not 
one  more,  not  one  less  will  be  saved  than  God  pur¬ 
posed.  ’  ’  Again,  ‘  ‘  God  purposed  from  all  eternity  to  do 
that  which  he  has  actually  done  and  is  to  do.”9 
Equally  fallacious  is  our  author’s  remark  that  “the 
exercise  of  God’s  free  and  sovereign  grace  in  the  con¬ 
version  and  salvation  of  a  part  of  mankind  is  the 
only  alternative  to  the  endless  sin  and  misery  of  the 
whole.”  1 

What  extreme  folly  !  As  though  the  whole  were 
less  than  a  part.  No  such  alternative  exists  save  in 
the  perplexed  mind  of  Dr.  Adams  :  for  according  to 
his  own  analogy  ‘ 4  it  might  have  been  as  easy  for  him 
to  have  subdued  them  all,  one  by  one,  as  to  have 
secured  the  assent  of  the  few.”  Nor  do  I  imagine 
that  this  so-called  reconciliation  was  very  highly  re¬ 
garded  by  its  author ;  for,  after  this  wonderful  analogy 
has  been  given,  he  remarks,  “  This  Scriptural  way  of 
treating  divine  decrees  and  free  agency  is  surely  safe, 
namely,  to  believe  them  both,  and  to  leave  out  of  view 
all  questions  as  to  their  consistency.”  2  One  can  not 
but  wonder  why  Dr.  Adams  refused  to  follow  his 
excellent  advice. 

9  P-  257« 

1  P-  244. 

2  P-  257. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE}. 


205 


SECTION  III. 

Calvinism  Teaches  that  the  Non-Elect  are  Rejected  and. 

Condemned  Irrespective  of  their  Wicked  Deeds  or 

Character. 

On  this  subject  the  Bible  is  very  explicit.  God  is 
always  represented  as  dealing  justly  with  his  subjects. 
If  he  .sends  punishments  upon  his  people,  it  is  because 
they  have  departed  from  his  commands.  If  a  soul 
is  rejected,  temporarily  or  eternally,  it  is  because  of 
the  great  sin  of  rejecting  him  from  whom  all  blessings 
flow.  A  few  from  the  many  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament  will  suffice  to  illustrate  the  law  of  equity 
by  which  the  divine  Will  is  guided.  The  curse  was 
pronounced  upon  our  first  parents  because  they  had 
disobeyed  the  commandment,  Thou  shalt  not  eat  of 
the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil  (Gen.  ii. 
17:  iii.  16,  17).  God’s  blessings  for  his  chosen  people 
are  conditioned  upon  their  diligently  hearkening  to, 
and  doing  that  which  is  right  in  his  sight  (Exodus 
xv.  26).  “I  call  heaven  and  earth  to  record  this  day 
against  you,  that  I  have  set  before  you  life  and  death, 
blessing  and  cursing  ;  therefore  choose  life,  that  both 
thou  and  thy  seed  may  live  ”  (Deut.  xxx.  19).  Saul’s 
temporary  and  eternal  rejection  by  God  was  based 
upon  his  rejection  of  the  Eord’s  word.  “  And  Samuel 
said  unto  Saul,  I  will  not  return  with  thee  :  for  thou 
hast  rejected  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  the  Lord  hath 
rejected  thee  from  being  King  over  Israel”  (1.  Sam. 
xv.  26).  See  also  11.  Sam.  vii.  15.  The  prolonged 
drought  in  the  reign  of  Ahab  was  because  of  the  many 
heinous  sins  of  monarch  and  people.  “And  it  came 
to  pass,  when  Ahab  saw  Elijah,  that  Ahab  said  unto 


206  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

him,  Art  thou  he  that  troubleth  Israel?  And  he 
answered,  I  have  not  troubled  Israel  ;  but  thou  and 
thy  father’s  house,  in  that  ye  have  forsaken  the  com¬ 
mandments  of  the  Lord,  and  hast  followed  Baalim  ” 
(i.  Kings  xviii.  17,  18).  “  If  ye  be  willing  and  obe¬ 

dient,  ye  shall  eat  the  good  of  the  land.  But  if  ye 
refuse  and  rebel,  ye  shall  be  devoured  with  the  sword, 
for  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it”  (Isa.  i.  19, 
20).  The  words  of  Jeremiah  to  his  angry  country¬ 
men  are  replete  with  good  common  sense  and  Bible 
sincerity.  “Therefore  now  amend  your  ways,  and 
your  doings,  and  obey  the  voice  of  the  Lord  your 
God  :  and  the  Lord  will  repent  him  of  the  evil  that 
he  hath  pronounced  against  you  ”  (xxvi.  13).  In  be¬ 
half  of  him  whose  ways  are  equal,  Ezekiel  says : 
“  Therefore  I  will  judge  you,  O  house  of  Israel,  every 
one  according  to  his  ways,  saith  the  Lord  God.  Re¬ 
pent,  and  turn  yourselves  from  all  your  transgressions, 
so  iniquity  shall  not  be  your  ruin  ”  (xviii.  30). 

The  same  law  of  equity  is  even  more  clearly  re¬ 
vealed  in  the  New  Testament.  “  For  if  ye  forgive 
men  their  trespasses,  your  heavenly  Father  will  also 
forgive  you.  But  if  ye  forgive  not  men  their  tres¬ 
passes,  neither  will  your  heavenly  Father  forgive  your 
trespasses  ”  (Matt.  vi.  14,  15).  “  Woe  unto  thee,  Cho- 
razin  !  woe  unto  thee,  Bethsaida  !  for  if  the  mighty 
works  which  were  done  in  you  had  been  done  in  Tyre 
and  Sidon,  they  would  have  repented  long  ago  in 
sackcloth  and  ashes”  (Matt.  xi.  21).  The  fearful 
calamities  which  should  surely  overtake  Jerusalem 
were  pronounced  against  her  because  of  the  obstinate 
rejection  of  him  whose  tears  were  the  sincere  expres¬ 
sion  of  a  mighty  effort  to  save  (Matt,  xxiii.  37  ;  Luke 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


207 


xix.  41-45).  “  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  con¬ 

demned  ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned 
already,  because  he  hath  not  believed  in  the  name 
of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God.  And  this  is  the 
condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and 
men  loved  darkness  rather  than  light,  because  their 
deeds  were  evil  ”  (John  iii.  18,  19).  The  extreme 
wickedness  of  heathenism  is  the  result  —not  of  God 
forsaking  man,  but  man’s  forsaking  God.  “  For  this 
cause  God  gave  them  up  unto  vile  affections  :  for  even 
their  women  did  change  the  natural  use  into  that 
which  is  against  nature  :  And  likewise  also  the  men, 
leaving  the  natural  use  of  the  woman,  burned  in  their 
lust  one  toward  another  ;  men  with  men  working  that 
which  is  unseemly,  and  receiving  in  themselves  that 
recompense  of  their  error  which  was  meet.  And  even 
as  they  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge, 
God  gave  them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind,  to  do  those 
things  which  are  not  convenient”  (Rom.  i.  26,  28). 
Speaking  of  God,  Paul  says,  “Who  will  render  to 
every  man  according  to  his  deeds”  (ii.  6).  “  So  then 

every  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  himself  to  God” 
(xiv.  12).  “  For  we  must  all  appear  before  the  judg¬ 

ment  seat  of  Christ ;  that  every  one  may  receive  the 
things  done  in  his  body,  according  to  that  he  hath 
done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad”  (11.  Cor.  v.  10). 
“And  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before 
God  ;  and  the  books  were  opened  :  and  another  book 
was  opened,  which  is  the  book  of  life  ;  and  the  dead 
were  judged  out  of  those  things  which  were  written  in 
the  books,  according  to  their  works.  And  the  sea 
gave  up  the  dead  which  were  in  it ;  and  death  and 
hell  delivered  up  the  dead  which  were  in  them,  and 


208  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

they  were  judged  every  man  according  to  their 
works”  (Rev.  xx.  12,  13).  “And  behold,  I  come 
quickly  ;  and  my  reward  is  with  me,  to  give  every 
man  according  as  his  work  shall  be  ”  (xxii.  12). 

I  shall  now  attempt  to  prove  that  Calvinism  une¬ 
quivocally  contradicts  the  Bible  on  this  subject  :  that 
it  assigns  as  the  generic  reason  for  the  rejection  and 
condemnation  of  the  non-elect  the  sovereign  will  of 
God.  I  say  “generic  reason”;  for  while  there  is  a 
class  of  Calvinistic  writers  who  boldly  and  consist¬ 
ently  maintain  this  doctrine,  there  is  another  class 
who  endeavor  to  escape  the  dilemma  by  insisting  that 
Calvinism  and  the  Scriptures  agree  in  teaching  that 
men  are  condemned  for  their  sins.  These  we  shall 
consider  in  due  time. 

Calvin  says,  “  All  are  not  created  on  equal  terms, 
but  some  are  foreordained  to  eternal  life,  others  to 
eternal  damnation  ;  and  accordingly,  as  each  has  been 
created  for  one  or  other  of  these  ends,  we  say  that  he 
has  been  predestinated  to  life  or  to  death.”  3  “  Esau 

and  Jacob  are  brothers,  begotten  of  the  same  parents, 
within  the  same  womb,  not  yet  born.  In  them,  all 
things  are  equal,  and  yet  the  judgment  of  God  with 
regard  to  them  is  different.  He  adopts  the  one  and 
rejects  the  other.”  4  Hence,  in  seeking  for  the  cause 
of  the  non-elect  being  rejected,  we  must  not  go  beyond 
the  divine  Will.  “Therefore,  if  we  can  not  assign 
any  reason  for  his  bestowing  mercy  on  his  people,  but 
just  that  it  so  pleases  him,  neither  can  we  have  any 
reason  for  his  reprobating  others  but  his  will.  When 
God  is  said  to  visit  in  mercy  or  harden  whom  he  will, 


3  “  Inst.”  B.  III.,  Ch.  XXI.,  Sec.  5. 

4  B.  III.,  Ch.  XXII.,  Sec.  5. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


209 


men  are  reminded  that  they  are  not  to  seek  for  any 
cause  beyond  his  will.”  5 6 

The  following  is  from  Rev.  Richard  Crakanthorp. 
He  first  refutes  the  doctrine  that  men  are  elected  if 
they  will  embrace  the  grace  of  God  :  then  he  con¬ 
demns  the  view  “that  there  is  none  rejected  of  God 
till  by  their  own  contempt  themselves  do  first  reject 
God  and  by  their  willful  obstinac}^  refuse  his  grace 
which  is  offered  unto  them”:  then  he  adds,  “How 
evidently,  do  these  men  oppugn  the  Scriptures  of 
God  !  For  if  election  and  rejection  depend  on  the 
actions  of  men  after  they  be  born,  how  can  it  be  true, 
which  the  Apostle  teacheth,  that  we  are  elected  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world  ?  ”  (i 

If  election  and  rejection  do  not  depend  on  the  ac¬ 
tions  of  men  after  they  are  born,  they  certainly  do  not 
depend  011  actions  before  they  are  born,  and  hence  they 
are  irrespective  of  men’s  actions.  Of  Jacob  and  Esau, 
Matthew  Henry  says,  “The  difference  was  made 
between  them  by  the  divine  counsel  before  they  were 
born,  or  had  done  any  evil.  Both  lay  struggling 
alike  in  the  mother’s  womb  when  it  was  said,  The 
elder  shall  serve  the  younger :  without  respect  to 
good  or  bad  works  done  or  foreseen.”  7 

Dr.  Venema  taught  that  “The  decree  of  withhold¬ 
ing  peculiar  grace  is  according  to  God’s  good  pleas¬ 
ure,  without  any  reference  to  the  character  of  the 
individual.”  8 

In  a  work  entitled  ‘  ‘  A  Defense  of  Some  of  the 
Important  Doctrines  of  the  Gospel,”  Rev.  John  Har- 

5  Ibid,  Sec.  u. 

6  “  Sermon,”  pp.  io,  n. 

7  Scott’s  Comprehensive  Comt. 

8  Inst.  p.  320. 


210  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

rison  says,  ‘But  it  may  be  said  that  the  reason  of 
God’s  withholding  the  means  of  grace  from  some,  may 
be  their  obstinacy  and  unworthiness  ;  the  abuse  of 
the  light  they  had,  and  a  foresight  that  they  would 
abuse  clearer  light,  if  they  had  it.  To  this  I  answer, 
all  men  are  naturally  obstinate  and  unworthy  ;  and  if 
God  deals  with  men  according  to  their  obstinacy  and 
unworthiness,  not  only  some  men,  but  even  all  men, 

should  be  excluded  from  the  means  of  grace . 

It  is  best  therefore  to  rest  in  that  reason  of  this  pro¬ 
cedure  assigned  by  Christ,  God’s  sovereign  will  of 
pleasure  (Matt.  xi.  25,  26).”  9 

Dr.  Bennett  Tyler  says,  “  One  is  taken  and  another 
left ;  and  the  reason  why  one  is  taken  in  preference  to 
another  lies  beyond  our  view  and  is  known  only  to 
God.”  1 

The  following  from  Dr.  Chalmers  is  characteris¬ 
tically  bold  :  “The  great  bulk  even  of  ©ur  orthodox 
theologians  would  rather  view  and  express  the  mat¬ 
ter  in  this  way,  that  those  who  are  not  saved  are 
simply  left  to  their  own  natural  inheritance  as  the 
children  of  wrath,  and  are  therefore  let  alone.  1.  Peter, 
ii.  8,  ‘Them  which  stumble  at  the  word,  being  diso¬ 
bedient,  wliereunto  also  they  were  appointed.’ 
This,  too,  the  adversaries,  and  also  the  modifiers  of 
our  doctrine,  would  try  to  get  the  better  of,  by  restrict¬ 
ing  the  appointment  to  the  consequences  of  disobedi¬ 
ence,  viewing  the  disobedience  itself  as  the  act  solely 
of  the  creature.  Jude  4,  ‘  For  there  are  certain 
men  crept  in  unawares,  who  were  before  of  old  or¬ 
dained  to  this  condemnation,  ungodly  men,’  etc.  And 


9  p-  173- 

1  “  Lectures  on  Theology.”  p.  356. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  21  I 

so  of  this  passage,  too,  both  they  who  deny,  and  they 
who  blink  our  doctrine  in  the  form  of  reprobation, 
will  tell  us  that  these  ungodly  were  of  old  ordained 
not  to  their  ungodliness,  but,  being  ungodly,  they  were 
ordained  to  the  condemnation  that  follows  it.  I  shall 
give  one  testimony  more,  and  that  perhaps  the  most 
difficult  of  all  to  be  disposed  of  by  those  who,  in  the 
handling  of  this  argument,  would  soften  the  represen¬ 
tations  of  Scripture  down  to  the  standard  of  their  own 
conceptions  and  their  own  taste  :  Rom.  ix.  1 8, 

‘  Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have 
mercy,  and  whom  he  will  he  hardeneth.’  This,  looked 
to  in  connection  with  the  narrative  of  God  hardening 
the  heart  of  Pharaoh,  does  seem  to  imply  a  counter¬ 
part  operation  to  that  of  the  grace  which  carries  into 
effect  the  decree  of  a  favorable  predestination.  Those 
whom  God  hath  ordained  to  eternal  life,  he  also  or¬ 
dains  to  the  character  that  is  meet  for  it ;  and  accom¬ 
plishes  this  ordination  by  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  who 
takes  the  heart  of  stone  out  of  those  whom  God  hath 
chosen  to  everlasting  blessedness,  and  gives  them  a 
heart  of  flesh.  And  in  contrast  with  this,  does  it  not 
appear,  as  if  upon  those  who  are  the  objects  of  an  ad¬ 
verse  predestination,  he  puts  forth  a  contrary  opera-  % 
tion — not  softening,  but  hardening  ?  And  as  if  there 
were  as  much  of  positive  efficiency  on  the  part  of  God 
in  conducting  the  one  operation  as  the  other,  it  is 
likened  to  the  respective  operations  of  the  potter  over 
the  clay  which  he  moulds  at  will  into  vessels  of  any 
use  or  form  that  pleases  him.”  3 

Dr.  J.  B.  Mozley  in  refuting  Archbishop  Whate- 
ly’s  interpretation  of  the  potter’s  power  over  the 


2  “Institutes.”  Vol.  II.,  pp.  396,  397. 


212  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

clay,  says,  “  Now,  it  is  true  that  a  potter  never  makes 
a  vessel  for  destruction  ;  but  some  vessels  are  certainly 
in  this  passage  spoken  of  as  ‘fitted  to  destruction,’ 
others  as  ‘  prepared  unto  glory  ’  ;  of  which  destruc¬ 
tion  and  glory  the  cause  is  plainly  put  further  back 
than  their  own  personal  conduct,  viz.,  in  a  certain 
divine  love  and  wrath,  before  either  side  had  done  any 
actual  good  or  evil.”  3 

Dr.  John  Woodbridge  says,  “  In  his  choice  of  men 
to  the  adoption  of  sons,  the  peculiar  reasons  for  his 
preference  are  always  concealed.”  4 

“If  it  be  acknowledged  that  there  is  any  differ¬ 
ence  between  the  character  and  ultimate  fate  of  a 
good  and  a  bad  man,  the  intellect  is  logically  led,  step 
by  step,  to  contemplate  the  will  of  the  Creator  as  the 
cause  of  this  difference.”  5 

Section  iv. 

The  Doctrine  Denied ,  and  yet  Granted  by  some  Cal- 

vmists. 

In  the  previous  sections  of  this  chapter  we  have 
been  regaled  by  some  Calvinistic  inconsistencies.  I 
now  propose  to  give  the  reader  another  opportunity  of 
witnessing  these  theological  legerdemains. 

“  Men  will  be  dealt  with  according  to  their  charac¬ 
ters  at  the  end  of  life,”  says  Dr.  Albert  Barnes  ;  again, 
commenting  on  Rom.  ii.  6,  he  says,  “  That  is,  as  he 
deserves  ;  or  God  will  be  just  and  will  treat  every  man 
as  he  ought  to  be  treated  ;  or  according  to  his  char- 


3  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  1879,  p.  206. 

4  “  Nat.  Preacher.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  132. 

5  “  Life  of  St  Paul.”  Convbeare  and  Howson.  Vol.  II.,  p.  178. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


213 


acter.  It  is  not  true  that  God  will  treat  men  accord- 
gin  to  their  external  conduct  ;  but  the  whole  language 
of  the  Bible  implies  that  he  will  judge  men  according 
to  the  whole  of  their  conduct,  including  their  thoughts 
and  principles  and  motives,  i.  e. ,  as  they  deserve;” 
again,  on  i.  28,  “It  does  not  mean  that  they  were 
reprobate  by  any  arbitrary  decree,  but  that  as  a  con¬ 
sequence  of  their  headstrong  passions,  their  determin¬ 
ation  to  forget  him,  he  left  them  to  a  state  of  mind 
which  was  evil  and  which  he  could  not  approve  ;  ”  on 
ix.  33,  he  says,  “  Men  still  are  offended  at  the  cross 
of  Christ.  They  contemn  and  despise  him.  He  is 
to  them  as  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground,  and  they  reject 
him  and  fall  into  ruin.  This  is  the  cause  why  sinners 
perish,  and  this  only.” 

In  these  remarks  we  are  told  that  men  are  not  rep¬ 
robated  by  any  arbitrary  decree  :  that  God  treats,  and 
will  treat  every  one  at  the  end  of  the  world  according 
to  their  motives,  or  their  characters  :  that  the  cause, 
yea  the  only  cause  why  sinners  perish,  is  their  rejection 
of  Christ.  Very  good  :  this  is  the  principle  of  right 
and  according  to  the  spirit  and  letter  of  Scripture. 
Now  let  the  reader  compare  the  above  with  the  follow¬ 
ing,  on  Rom.  ix.  11,  “It  was  not  because  they  had 
formed  a  character,  and  manifested  qualities  which 
made  this  distinction  proper.  It  was  laid  back  of  any 
such  character,  and  therefore  had  its  origin  in  the  plan 
or  purpose  of  God.”  It  is  simply  puerile  to  say  that 
both  of  these  statements  are  to  be  accepted.  If  an 
affirmation  means  the  same  as  a  negation,  let  us  throw 
away  all  reasoning  and  become  Nescients.  If  we 
accept  the  former  statements,  we  reject  Calvinism  ;  if 
the  latter,  what  shall  we  do  with  the  Bible  ? 


214  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

Dr.  Robt.  J.  Breckenridge  says,  “That  portion  of 
the  human  race  that  will  be  finally  lost  we  know  per¬ 
fectly,  from  the  Scriptures,  will  be  condemned  for  their 
sins  and  will,  in  their  own  judgment,  and  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  men  and  angels,  as  well  as  in  the  judgment  of 
God  himself,  richly  deserve  their  condemnation  :  nor 
is  it  possible  to  imagine  that  they  would  be  condemned 
under  any  other  circumstances.  As  I  have  already 
shown,  even  the  elect  are  chosen  of  God  from  eternity, 
not  in  contemplation  of  them  as  pure  and  deserving 
God’s  love,  but  in  contemplation  of  them  as  polluted, 
and  so  as  needing  the  infinite  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and 
the  infinite  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  ...  It  is,  there¬ 
fore,  impious  and  absurd  to  say  that  God  passes  by 
and  reprobates  those  who  will  perish  in  the  contempla¬ 
tion  of  their  being  pure:  they  were  always  polluted 
from  the  first  moment  of  their  existence  :  were  con¬ 
templated  as  such  from  eternity  :  were  passed  by  and 
reprobated  being  such  :  will  be  condemned  as  such  to 
all  eternity.”  This  is  sufficiently  explicit.  We  are 
told  the  direct  cause  why  the  non-elect  are  reprobated; 
viz.,  for  their  sins.  Yea,  so  extremely  clear  is  this  that 
Dr.  Breckenridge  distinctly  informs  us  that  it  is  “  im¬ 
possible  to  imagine  that  they  would  be  condemned 
under  any  other  circumstances.”  What!  under  no 
other  circumstances  ?  No,  this  is  not  to  be  imagined, 
much  less  postulated.  Well  then,  Dr.  Breckenridge 
has  performed  impossibilities  ;  for  after  writing  the 
above,  he  gravely  says,  “On  the  other  hand,  it  will 
not  do  to  say  God  passes  by  and  reprobates  lost  sin¬ 
ners  merely  on  account  of  their  sins,  either  original  or 
actual :  because  as  to  original  sin,  the  elect  were  as 
deeply  polluted  as  the  reprobate,  and  as  to  actual 


AND  MAN'S  MORAL  NATURE. 


215 


transgressions,  the  great  glory  of  the  Saviour  is  that 
he  is  able  to  save  unto  the  uttermost  them  that  come 
to  God  by  him.”  0 

I  have  heard  of,  and  justly  admired  Dr.  Brecken- 
ridge  for  his  power  as  a  preacher  ;  but  I  now  have  a 
new  cause  for  admiring  his  wonderful  imagination  which 
has  actually  achieved  impossibilities.  “Original” 
and  “  actual  sin  ”  exhaust  the  Calvinistic  vocabulary 
on  sin.  If,  therefore,  the  11011-elect  are  not  reprobated 
“  merely  on  account  of  their  sins,  either  original  or 
actual,”  as  our  esteemed  author  affirms  they  are  not, 
it  must  be  011  account  of  something  over  and  above 
their  sins  :  which  is  the  very  thing  impossible  to  be 
imagined.  Will  some  kind  Calvinistic  friend  inform 
us  where  this  unimaginable  cause  is  revealed  in  the 
Bible  ? 

The  views  of  Dr.  John  Gill  are  somewhat  peculiar. 
He  divides  the  decree  of  rejection  into  two  parts,  viz., 
preterition  and  predamnation.  “  Preterition  is  God’s 
passing  by  some  men,  when  he  chose  others  ;  in  this 
act,  sin  comes  not  into  consideration,  for  men  are  con¬ 
sidered  as  not  created,  and  so  as  not  fallen  :  it  is  a 
pure  act  of  sovereignty.  Predamnation  is  God’s 
appointment  or  preordination  of  men  to  condemnation 
for  sin.  God  damns  men  but  for  sin,  and  he  decreed 
to  damn  none  but  for  sin.” 6  7 

Here  we  have  the  unscriptural  statement  that  men 
are  passed  by,  or  that  God  has  determined  not  to  save 
some,  for  nothing,  absolutely  nothing  ;  for  so  far  forth, 


6  “  The  Knowledge  of  God.  Objectively  Considered,”  pp.  5,  15,  16. 

7  As  quoted  by  Rev.  Daniel  T.  Fiske  in  a  “Review  of  Gill’s  Works.” 
“  Bib.  Sacra,”  Vol.  XVIII.,  p.  360. 


216  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

“  sin  comes  not  into  consideration  ”  ;  “  it  is  a  pure  act 
of  sovereignty.” 

After  having  thus  determined  to  “pass  by”  the 
non-elect,  after  having  decreed  not  to  give  them  sal¬ 
vation,  God  decrees  to  condemn  them  for  their  sins. 
Where  is  the  passage  of  Scripture  justifying  this 
illogical  and  manifestly  unfair  procedure  ?  Beyond 
all  controversy  none  are  appointed  to  damnation  but 
those  previously  rejected,  and  this  “passing  by”  is 
the  basis  of  the  damnatory  appointment :  consequently 
the  distinction  of  Dr.  Gill  does  not  touch  the  question 
at  issue.  Free  from  all  circumlocution  his  doctrine  is 
consistent  Calvinism,  namely,  the  non-elect  are  con¬ 
demned  and  eternally  punished  for  nothing.  If  this 
kind  of  reasoning  characterized  the  works  of  Dr.  Gill, 
it  is  no  wonder  Robert  Hall  thought  them  “  a  conti¬ 
nent  of  mud.” 

Dr.  Pictet  asserts  “  When  any  are  lost,  we  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  they  perish  by  their  own  deserts, 
although  God  could  have  mercifully  saved  them  had 
it  pleased  him.”  Again  he  says,  “  Sin,  therefore,  is 
the  cause,  on  account  of  which  God  hath  passed  by 
some  men  :  for  had  there  been  no  sin,  no  man 
would  have  been  forsaken.”  This  last  remark  simply 
skims  the  surface  of  the  subject.  I  do  not  question 
that  sin  is  the  means  by  which  the  non-elect  are  con¬ 
demned.  But,  inasmuch  as  “  God  could  have  merci¬ 
fully  saved  them,  had  it  pleased  him,”  I  desire  to 
know  the  generic  reason  why  that  mercy  was  not 
exercised  by  Him  of  whom  it  is  said,  “  I  have  no 
pleasure  in  the  death  of  the  wicked.”  The  answer  is 
at  hand.  Dr.  Pictet  adds,  “Yet  if  it  be  asked  why 
one  man  is  passed  by  and  not  the  other,  it  can  not  then 


AND  MAN’S  MORAIy  NATURE.  217 

be  said  that  sin  is  the  cause  of  this  difference,  since 
both  are  equally  sinners,  and  therefore,  equally  deserv¬ 
ing  of  rejection  ;  but  it  must  be  referred  to  the  sov¬ 
ereign  pleasure  of  God.”  8 

Will  the  reader  please  carefully  notice  the  follow¬ 
ing  from  Dr.  John  Dick  ?  “  The  term  predestination 

includes  the  decrees  of  election  and  reprobation. 
Some,  indeed,  confine  it  to  election  ;  but  there  seems 
to  be  no  sufficient  reason  for  not  extending  it  to  the 
one  as  well  as  the  other ;  as  in  both,  the  final  con¬ 
dition  of  man  is  pre-appointed,  or  predestinated.  .  .  . 
They  were  appointed  to  wrath  for  their  sins  ;  but  it 
was  not  for  their  sins,  as  we  have  shown,  but  in  exer¬ 
cise  of  sovereignty,  that  they  were  rejected.”  9 

If  we  make  any  distinction  concerning  the 
“appointment”  to  wrath,  and  the  “  rejection,”  the 
latter  must  have  the  priority  ;  hence  the  non-elect  are 
rejected  irrespective  of  anything  which  they  have 
done.  Against  this  manifest  inequality  I  earnestly 
protest  in  the  name  of  him  who  said,  “  Therefore  I 
will  judge  you,  O  house  of  Israel,  every  one  according 
to  his  ways.” 

SECTION  v 

The  Doctrine  Denied  by  Some  Calvinists ,  but  Logically 
Necessitated  by  their  Fundamental  Position. 

Since  the  death  of  the  Reformer,  Calvinism  has 
been  gradually  gravitating  toward  Arminianism. 
Doubtless  the  reader  has  observed  this  change  of  base 
as  he  has  read  the  previous  chapters.  The  sections  of 


8  “  Theology,”  p.  213. 

9  “  Theology,”  pp.  360,  361. 


218  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

this  chapter  are  equally  conclusive.  The  early  Cal¬ 
vinists,  following  their  leader,  positively  declared  that 
the  non-elect  are  eternally  condemned  irrespective  of 
anything  which  they  had  done.  These  were  followed 
by  a  second  class  of  writers  who  made  the  distinction 
of  “appointment”  and  “rejection,”  declaring  that 
the  former  is  for  sin,  while  the  latter  is  an  act  of  mere 
sovereignty.  Now,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  there  is 
a  third  class  who  persistently  affirm  that  the  non-elect 
are  condemned  for  their  sins,  or  wicked  character  :  all 
other  reasons  are  carefully  omitted  from  any  consider¬ 
ation,  so  sure  are  they  that  this  is  the  cause.  The 
following  selections  will  sufficiently  indicate  the  trend 
of  these  milder  Calvinists. 

Toplady  says,  “  When  we  say  that  the  decree  of 
predestination  to  life  and  death  respects  man  as  fallen, 
we  do  not  mean  that  the  fall  was  actually  antecedent 
to  that  decree  ;  for  the  decree  is  truly  and  properly 
eternal,  as  all  God’s  immanent  acts  undoubtedly  are  ; 
whereas,  the  fall  took  place  in  time.  What  we  intend 
then,  is  only  this,  viz.,  that  God  (for  reasons  without 
doubt,  worthy  of  himself  and  of  which  we  are  by  no 
means  in  this  life  competent  judges),  having  from  ever¬ 
lasting  x3eremptorily  ordained  to  suffer  the  fall  of  Adam, 
did  likewise  from  everlasting  consider  the  human 
race  as  fallen  ;  and  out  of  the  whole  mass  of  mankind, 
thus  viewed  and  foreknown  as  impure  and  obnoxious 
to  condemnation,  vouchsafed  to  select  some  particular 
persons  (who  collectively  make  up  a  very  great, 
though  precisely  determinate  number)  in  and  on 
whom  he  would  make  known  the  ineffable  riches  of 
his  mercy.”  1 


i  “  Works,”  p.  689. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


219 


Charnock  says,  “  Reprobation  in  its  first  notion  is 
an  act  of  preterition,  or  passing  by.  A  man  is  not 
made  wicked  by  the  act  of  God  ;  but  it  supposeth  him 
wicked,  and  so  it  is  nothing  else  but  God’s  leaving  a 
man  in  that  guilt  and  filth  wherein  he  beholds  him. 
In  its  second  notion  it  is  an  ordination,  not  to  a  crime, 
but  to  a  punishment  (Jude  4)  ‘  an  ordaining  to  con¬ 
demnation.’  And  though  it  be  an  eternal  act  of  God, 
yet,  in  order  of  nature,  it  follows  upon  the  foresight 
of  the  transgression  of  man  and  supposeth  the  crime.”  2 

In  “Tracts  on  the  Doctrines,  Order  and  Polity  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,”  Dr.  G.  W.  Musgrave  says, 
“  What  we  do  maintain,  I  repeat  it,  is,  that  God  has 
determined  to  ‘  pass  by  ’  the  11011-elect,  and  to  permit 
them  to  continue  in  unbelief  and  disobedience  ;  and 
foreseeing  that  if  left  to  themselves  they  would  thus 
freely  and  criminally  reject  his  gospel  and  rebel 
against  his  law,  he  determined  to  punish  them  with 
eternal  death  for  their  sins  and  according  to  their  just 
deserts.”  3 

Of  the  non-elect,  Dr.  Wm.  D.  Smith  says,  “There 
is  nothing  that  hinders  their  salvation  but  their  own 
aversion  to  holiness,  and  their  love  of  sin  ;  and  it  is 
for  this  that  God  has  purposed  to  damn  them.”  4 

Dr.  N.  T.  Rice  explains  the  doctrine  as  follows  : 
“  Now  Arminians  agree  with  us,  that  on  the  day  of 
judgment  God  will  pronounce  sentence  of  eternal  con¬ 
demnation  upon  multitudes  of  men.  ‘  Then  shall  he  say 
unto  them  011  the  left  hand,  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed, 
into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his 

2  “  Attributes  of  God,”  p.  492. 

3  Vol.  III.,  p.  208. 

4  “  What  is  Calvinism  ?  ”  p.  51. 


220  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

angels.  And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting 
punishment.’  Will  this  fearful  sentence  be  just? 
Arminians  agree  with  us  that  it  will,  because  it  will 
be  a  sentence  of  merited  punishment  for  their  sins. 
Then  can  there  be  any  objection  to  saying,  that  God 
purposed  from  eternity  to  pronounce  this  just  sentence  ? 
He  foresaw  the  sin  of  the  finally  impenitent,  and  for 
their  sin  he  purposed  to  inflict  upon  them  the  just 
penalty  of  his  law.  Can  any  one  object  to  this  ?  Can 
it  be  unjust  in  God  to  purpose  to  do  a  just  act  ?  ”  5 

Dr.  Lyman  H.  Atwater  says,  “Election  is  an  act 
of  special  mercy  and  grace  which  chooses  some  to  be 
rescued  out  of  this  doomed  mass  and  made  heirs  of 
glory,  and  insures  all  the  requisites  to  the  fulfillment 
of  this  purpose.  Reprobation,  otherwise  called  Pre- 
terition,  is  simply  the  passing  by  those  not  thus  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  purpose  of  election,  and  leaving  them  to 
go  on  unreclaimed  to  merited  perdition.  It  is  thus  a 
judicial  and  punitive,  and,  in  this  sense,  not  a  merely 
arbitrary  act.”  6 

In  considering  this  doctrine  the  reader  will  please 
notice  that  all  these  writers  agree  in  declaring  that  the 
non-elect  are  reprobated,  or  passed  by,  because  of 
their  sins.  God  “considered  the  human  race  as 
fallen  it  is  God’s  “  leaving  a  man  in  that  guilt  and 
filth,  wherein  he  (God)  beholds  him  ;  ”  God  “  deter¬ 
mined  to  punish  them  with  eternal  death  for  their  sins, 
and  according  to  their  just  merits  ;  ”  it  is  for  their  love 
of  sin  “  that  God  has  purposed  to  damn  them  ;  it  is 
“a  sentence  of  merited  punishment  for  their  sins;  ” 
this  preterition  is  “to  merited  perdition.” 


s  “God  Sovereign  and  Man  Free,”  p.  136. 
e  “  Presby.  Quarterly,”  1873,  p,  165. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURR.  221 

But  this  sentence  of  condemnation  is  an  eternal  act 
of  God,  and  hence  before  creation.  True.  Conse¬ 
quently  so  far  forth,  the  act  of  condemnation  is  based, 
or  grounded  upon  the  divine  foresight  of  the  race  as 
fallen.  Certainly,  for  says  Toplady,  “out  of  the 
whole  mass  of  mankind,  thus  viewed  and  foreknown 
as  impure  and  obnoxious  to  condemnation,”  God 
‘ 1  vouchsafed  ’  ’  salvation  to  ‘  ‘  some  particular  persons.  ’  ’ 
Charnock  declares  that  the  condemnation  “follows 
upon  the  foresight  of  the  transgression.”  Dr.  Mus- 
grave  affirms  that  God  ‘  ‘  foreseeing  that  if  left  to  them¬ 
selves  they  would  thus  freely  and  criminally  reject  his 
gospel  and  rebel  against  his  law,  he  determined  ’  ’  to 
condemn  them.  Dr.  Rice  says,  “  He  foresaw  the  sin 
of  the  finally  impenitent,  and  for  their  sin  he  purposed 
to  inflict  upon  them  the  just  penalty  of  his  law.” 
Dr.  Atwater  says,  in  a  paragraph  immediately  above 
the  one  quoted,  that  his  doctrine  “  makes  election  and 
reprobation  act  upon  the  race  viewed  as  fallen,  sinful, 
already  deserving  and  bound  over  to  perdition.” 
Then,  beyond  all  controversy,  according  to  these 
writers,  the  act,  or  decree  of  reprobation,  or  preter- 
ition  “follows,”  comes  after,  “the  foresight  of  the 
transgression.” 

But  so  far  this  is  pure  Arminianism.  I  doubt  not 
the  reader  is  sufficiently  versed  in  the  doctrines  of 
these  two  rival  systems  to  know  that  the  above  affir¬ 
mation  is  literally  true.  But  to  place  the  matter  beyond 
all  dispute  I  will  add  the  necessary  proof.  In  speak¬ 
ing  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Arminians,  Dr.  Ashbel 
Green  says,  “They  say  that  the  foreknowledge  of 
God  is  the  ground  of  his  decree.”  7 


7  “Lectures  on  the  Shorter  Catechism,”  p.  178. 


222  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

“Election  and  reprobation,  as  Arminianism  holds 
them,  are  conditioned  upon  the  conduct  and  voluntary 
character  of  the  subjects.  All  submitting  to  God  and 
righteousness,  by  repentance  of  sin  and  true  self-con¬ 
secrating  faith,  do  meet  the  conditions  of  that  elec¬ 
tion  ;  all  who  persist  in  sin  present  the  qualities  upon 
which  reprobation  depends.  And  as  this  preference 
for  the  obedient  and  holy,  and  rejection  of  the  dis¬ 
obedient  and  unholy,  lies  in  the  very  nature  of  God, 
so  this  election  and  reprobation  are  from  before  the 
foundations  of  the  world.”  8 9 

Thus  it  is  evident  beyond  all  cavil  that  the  Calvinis- 
tic  theologians  whose  views  lead  them  to  declare  that  the 
decree  of  reprobation  follows  the  foresight  of  the  trans¬ 
gression,  have  so  far,  adopted  one  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  Arminianism.  But  does  not  Calvinism 
declare  that  the  decrees  are  one  ?  Yes,  verily  we  are 
so  taught.  Dr.  Hodge  declares  “  The  decrees  of  God, 
therefore,  are  not  many,  but  one  purpose.”  !)  Toplady 
declares  that  “the  twofold  predestination  of  some  to 
life  and  of  others  to  death  ”  are  “  constituent  parts  of 
the  same  decree.”  1  Howe  affirms  “  That  all  the  pur¬ 
poses  of  the  divine  will  are  co-eternal . There 

can  be  no  place  for  dispute  about  the  priority  or  pos¬ 
teriority  of  this  or  that  purpose  of  God.  They  must 
be  all  simultaneous,  all  at  once,  in  one  and  the  same 
eternal  view  according  to  that  clear  and  distinct,  and 
all-comprehending  prospect  that  he  hath  of  all  things 
eternally  before  his  eyes.”  3 


8  Dr.  Whedon.  “Methodist  Quarterly  Review,”  1879^.409. 

9  “  Systematic  Theology.”  Vol.  I.,  p.  537. 

1  “  Works,”  p.  690. 

2  “  Works,”  p.  1135. 


AND  MAN'S  MORAL  NATURE. 


223 


Consequently,  the  conclusion  is  legitimate,  yea, 
irresistible,  that  if  one  decree  “follows  upon  the  fore¬ 
sight  of  the  transgression  of  man,”  if  one  decree 
“  supposeth  ”  a  man  wicked,  the  other  part  of  the 
decree  follows  upon  a  foresight  that  the  soul  will 
repent  and  believe.  Or  in  other  words,  the  view  of 
these  Calvinists  is  one-half  Arminianism,  which  logic¬ 
ally  necessitates  the  other  half. 

But  let  us  examine  the  other  horn  of  the  dilemma. 
Is  it  consistent  Calvinism  to  teach  that  a?iy  of  the 
divine  decrees  are  based  upon,  or  follow  the  divine 
foresight  ?  This  question  is  vitally  important  to  a 
correct  understanding  of  the  whole  discussion.  It 
meets  the  student  of  theology  at  every  turn  because 
of  the  contradictory  assertions  which  are  constantly 
made — either  directly  or  indirectly — by  Calvinistic 
writers.  At  one  stage  of  the  discussion  you  are  told 
that  the  decrees  are  not  conditioned,  based,  or  grounded 
upon  anything  in  man  :  but  presto,  change,  and  now 
you  are  told  that  the  doctrine  of  reprobation  is  “sim¬ 
ply,”  yes,  “simply  the  passing  by  those  not  thus  in¬ 
cluded  in  the  purpose  of  election,  and  leaving  them  to 
go  on  unreclaimed  to  merited  perdition.”  I  now  pro¬ 
pose  to  show  that  this  is  ‘  ‘  simply’  ’  impossible  according 
to  the  fundamental  position  of  Calvinism.  To  avoid 
needless  repetition,  the  reader  is  directed  to  Chapter  11. 
of  Part  I.  He  will  there  find  the  teaching  of  Cal¬ 
vinism  in  answer  to  the  question,  Are  God’s  Decrees 
Conditional  ?  Are  they  based  on  the  divine  fore¬ 
knowledge  ?  He  will  there  find  that  from  Augustine 
to  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  Calvinism  has  always  affirmed 
the  unconditional  decree  as  the  basis  of  its  system  ; 
hence,  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  is  histor- 


224  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

ically  correct  in  saying,  ‘  ‘  Although  God  knows  what¬ 
soever  may  or  can  come  to  pass,  upon  all  supposed 
conditions  ;  yet  hath  he  not  decreed  anything  because 
he  foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as  that  which  would  come 
to  pass  upon  such  conditions.”  Dr.  Venema  says, 
‘‘The  act  of  the  decree  is  absolute;  not  uncertain  or 
doubtful.  It  is  not  suspended  on  any  condition  on 
the  part  of  man.”  If  the  decrees  are  not  conditioned 
on  anything  in  man,  then  it  is  a  waste  of  time  to 
affirm  that  the  act  of  reprobation  follows  upon  the 
foresight  of  the  transgression.  If  we  accept  the  fun¬ 
damental  position  of  Calvinism,  that  God  could  not 
know  what  his  creatures  would  do  before  he  had 
determined  their  actions,  we  must  forever  banish  all 
thought  about  the  non-elect  being  condemned,  and  left 
to  their  merited  punishment.  It  is  incontestably  cer¬ 
tain  that  Calvinism  teaches  the  unity  of  the  divine 
decrees  :  the  divine  foreknowledge,  as  depending  on 
those  decrees,  and  therefore  Calvinism  does  teach, 
directly  and  indirectly,  that  the  non-elect  are  eternally 
condemned,  irrespective  of  their  foreseen  wickedness. 
The  denial  of  this  necessitates  Arminianism. 

SECTION  VI. 

The  Bible  Argument. 

We  have  already  considered  some  passages  of 
Scripture  concerning  God’s  dealings  with  the  non¬ 
elect.  But  as  they  represent  the  brighter  side  of  the 
subject,  let  us  now  examine  those  parts  of  the  Bible 
which  the  Calvinist  claims  in  support  of  his  dark  and 
extremely  repulsive  doctrine  of  reprobation.  I  pro¬ 
pose  to  deal  fairly  with  the  reader  and  give  him  ample 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


225 


opportunity  to  see  on  which  side  is  the  truth.  For 
convenience  I  shall  divide  the  subject  into  three  parts, 
first  examining  the  passages  which  declare  God’s 
agency  in  the  production  of  evil.  “  But  the  Spirit  of 
the  Ford  departed  from  Saul,  and  an  evil  spirit  from 
the  Ford  troubledhim”  (1.  Sam.  xvi.  14).  See  also 
xviii.  10,  and  xix.  9.  “Thussaith  the  Ford,  Behold, 

I  will  raise  up  evil  against  thee,  out  of  thine  own 
house,  and  I  will  take  thy  wives  before  thine  eyes, 
and  give  them  unto  thy  neighbor,  and  he  shall  lie  • 
with  thy  wives  in  the  sight  of  this  sun”  (11.  Sam. 
xii.  11).  “And  the  King  said,  What  have  I  to  do 
with  you,  ye  sons  of  Zeruiah  ?  so  let  him  curse,  be¬ 
cause  the  Ford  hath  said  unto  him,  Curse  David.  Who 
shall  then  say,  Wherefore  hast  thou  done  so  ?  ”  (xvi. 
10).  “  And  Absalom  and  all  the  men  of  Israel  said, 

The  counsel  of  Hushai  the  Archite  is  better  than  the 
counsel  of  Ahithophel.  For  the  Ford  had  appointed 
to  defeat  the  good  counsel  of  Ahithophel,  to  the  intent 
that  the  Ford  might  bring  evil  upon  Absalom  ”  (xvii. 
14).  “  And  again  the  anger  of  the  Ford  was  kindled 

against  Israel  and  he  moved  David  against  them  to 
say,  Go,  number  Israel  and  Judah”  (xxiv.  1). 

“  Wherefore  the  King  hearkened  not  unto  the  people  ; 
for  the  cause  was  from  the  Ford,  that  he  might  per¬ 
form  his  saying,  which  the  Ford  spoke  by  Ahijah  the 
Shilonite  unto  Jeroboam  the  son  of  Nebat  ”  (1.  Kings 
xii.  15).  “  And  the  Ford  said,  Who  shall  persuade 

Ahab,  that  he  may  go  up  and  fall  at  Ramoth-gilead  ? 
And  one  said  on  this  manner,  and  another  said  on 
that  manner.  And  there  came  forth  a  spirit  and  stood 
before  the  Ford,  and  said,  I  will  persuade  him.  And 
the  Ford  said  unto  him,  Wherewith?  And  he  said,  I 


226  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

will  go  forth,  and  I  will  be  a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth 
of  all  his  prophets.  And  he  said,  Thou  shalt  per¬ 
suade  him,  and  prevail  also  :  go  forth,  and  do  so. 
Now  therefore,  behold,  the  Lord  hath  put  a  lying 
spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  these  thy  prophets,  and  the 
Lord  hath  spoken  evil  concerning  thee  ”  (xxii.  20-23). 
‘  ‘  Wherefore  I  gave  them  also  statutes  that  were  not 
good,  and  judgments  whereby  they  should  not  live. 
And  I  polluted  them  in  their  own  gifts,  in  that  they 
•caused  to  pass  through  the  fire  all  that  openeth  the 
womb,  that  I  might  make  them  desolate,  to  the  end 
that  they  might  know  that  I  am  the  Lord  ”  (Ezek.  xx. 
25-26).  “Shall  a  trumpet  be  blown  in  the  city  and 
the  people  be  not  afraid  ?  Shall  there  be  evil  in  a  city, 
and  the  Lord  hath  not  done  it?”  (Amos  iii.  6).  I 
form  the  light,  and  create  darkness  ;  I  make  peace, 
and  create  evil.  I  the  Lord  do  all  these  things  ”  (Isa. 
xlv.  7). 

In  considering  the  meaning  of  these  passages  no¬ 
tice  (a)  That  if  we  take  the  exact,  the  literal  interpre¬ 
tation,  God  must  be  the  author  of  sin.  He  who 
creates  evil  (sin)  must  be  the  author,  and  therefore  we 
see  at  once  that  this  can  not  be  the  truth.  ( b )  At 
times  the  term  “evil  ”  must  be  understood  as  phys¬ 
ical  instead  of  moral.  Calamities,  punishments,  death, 
are  often  spoken  of  or  alluded  to  in  the  Bible  as  evil 
from  the  Lord  (Seei.  Kings  xvii.  20).  Thus  Cowles 
on  the  passage  in  Amos  says,  ‘  ‘  Shall  we  not  recognize 
God’s  agency  as  including  and  working  all  the  in¬ 
flictions  of  calamity  that  fall  on  guilty  cities  ?  This 
‘  evil  in  the  city,’  which  v.  6  assumes  that  the  Lord 
has  done,  must  be  natural,  not  moral;  calamity,  not 
sin.  The  original  Hebrew  is  used  frequently  for  nat- 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  227 

ural  evil,  e.  g.,  Gen.  xix.  19:  ‘Lest  some  evil  take 
me  and  I  die  ;  ’  and  Gen.  xliv.  34  :  ‘  Lest  peradventure 
I  see  the  evil  that  shall  come  on  my  father  ;  ’  also  Ex. 
xxxii.  14.  Besides,  the  strain  of  the  whole  passage  is 
of  natural  evil — the  judgment  about  to  come  from 
God  on  apostate  and  guilty  Israel.  To  construe  this 
evil,  therefore,  as  being  sin,  and  not  calamity,  is  to  ig¬ 
nore  the  whole  current  of  thought,  and  to  outrage  the 
soundest,  most  vital  laws  of  interpretation.  More¬ 
over,  the  common  justice  toward  God  forbids  this  con¬ 
struction.  ‘Shall  there  be  sin  in  the  city,  and  the 
Lord  hath  not  done  it  ?  ’  This  would  assume  that 
God  is  the  doer  of  all  the  sin  in  our  world.”  3 

By  observing  this  legitimate  method  of  interpreta¬ 
tion  many  of  the  supposed  difficulties  are  at  once 
obviated.  Throughout  this  discussion  I  have  main¬ 
tained  that  God  does  punish  individuals  and  nations 
according  to  their  wdckedness. 

As  we  have  seen,  this  is  the  doctrine  of  Scripture. 
In  most  of  the  passages  already  considered,  the  reason 
for  the  chastisement  is  clearly  stated  even  before  the 
doom  is  pronounced. 

The  strong  language  in  Ezek.  xx.  25,  26  is  prefixed 
with  the  words,  “  Because  they  had  not  executed  my 
judgments,  but  had  despised  my  statutes  and  had 
polluted  my  Sabbaths,  and  their  eyes  were  after  their 
father’s  idols.”  Are  we  to  wonder  that  God’s  pun¬ 
ishments  were  severe  ?  His  chosen  people  had  for¬ 
saken  their  Deliverer  ;  had  abandoned  the  true  wor¬ 
ship  to  serve  idols  of  wood,  silver  and  gold.  “Ah, 
sinful  nation,  a  people  laden  with  iniquity,  a  seed  of 
evildoers,  children  that  are  corrupters  !  they  have 


3  “  The  Minor  Prophets.” 


228  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

forsaken  the  kord,  they  have  provoked  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel  unto  anger,  they  are  gone  away  backward  ” 
(Isa.  i.  4).  In  the  numbering  of  the  nations  by  David, 
we  must  assume  that  the  people  had  sinned — for  surely 
God  is  not  a  petulant  tyrant — angry  at,  and  condemn¬ 
ing  them  without  sufficient  reason.  So  far  forth  there 
is  no  difficulty.  The  mysterious  and  painful  aspects 
of  the  problem  are  in  the  statement  that  the  Ford 
moved  David  to  commit  this  sin.  Some  light  is 
thrown  on  the  subject  by  the  corresponding  passage 
in  1.  Chron.  xxi.  1,  where  we  are  told  that  “Satan 
stood  up  against  Israel,  and  provoked  David  to  num¬ 
ber  Israel.”  From  this  we  are  compelled  to  believe 
that  if  God  had  anything  to  do  with  the  sin  of  David, 
it  must  have  been  negatively,  in  the  sense  of  permis¬ 
sion.  But  if  God  permitted  that,  when  he  could  have 
prevented,  does  it  not  follow  that  after  all  we  must  accept 
it  as  really  the  Divine  Will  ?  Yes,  it  seems  so  to  me  : 
consequently  I  advance  the  thought  that  these  passages 
are  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  Hebrew  concep¬ 
tion  of  Jehovah.  If  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspira¬ 
tion  of  God,  then  the  Old  Testament  can  not  be  placed 
above  the  New.  Beyond  all  controversy  there  is 
a  progress  of  doctrine.  That  which  was  at  first  ob¬ 
scurely  revealed,  was  afterwards  more  clearly  declared  : 
hence  it  is  now  universally  accepted  as  an  axiom  in 
Bible  interpretation  that  the  clear  must  interpret  the 
obscure.  Consequently,  the  searcher  for  truth  must 
examine  these  Old  Testament  passages  in  the  light  of 
the  Epistle  of  James.  “  Let  no  man  say  when  he  is 
tempted,  I  am  tempted  of  God  ;  for  God  can  not  be 
tempted  with  evil,  neither  tempteth  he  any  man  ” 
(i.  13).  Alford  says,  “  The  temptation  is  a  trying  of 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


229 


the  man  by  the  solicitation  of  evil  ;  whether  that  evil 
be  the  terror  of  eternal  danger,  or  whatever  it  be,  all 
temptation  by  means  of  it,  arises  not  from  God,  blit 
from  ourselves — our  own  lust.  God  ordains  the  temp¬ 
tation,  overrules  the  temptation,  but  does  not  tempt, 
is  not  the  spring  of  the  solicitation  to  sin.”  The  fol¬ 
lowing  from  Dr.  E.  P.  Hickok  is  worthy  of  careful 
consideration.  “  Here  is  more  than  mere  assertion 
that  God  does  not  tempt  to  evil  ;  the  declaration  has 
an  ample  reason  given  for  it.  A  tempter  to  evil  must 
himself  have  been  tempted  with  evil,  and  this  can  not 
be  of  God.  God  can  not  so  be  tempted,  and  thus 
demonstrably  God  can  not  tempt  any  man.  If  God 
entices  to  sin,  he  must  have  come  to  wish  sin  ;  and, 
as  the  latter  is  impossible,  the  former  is  necessarily 
excluded.  So  categorical  a  denial  of  God’s  tempta- 
bility  to  evil,  for  the  sake  of  excluding  him  from  all 
complicity  with  the  evil,  and  shutting  out  all  excuse 
for  sin  from  the  assumption  that  God  tempted  to  sin, 
demands  careful  consideration,  if  we  are  clearly  to 
apprehend  the  reasons  which  authorize  it.”  4 

If  this  reasoning  be  correct  then  we  are  necessarily 
excluded  from  interpreting  these  passages  as  teaching 
— directly  or  indirectly — that  God  does  tempt  to  evil. 

How  shall  we  proceed  ?  As  it  seems  to  me,  the 
truth  is  this.  According  to  the  popular  conception  of 
the  Hebrews,  Jehovah  did  everything.  Secondary 
causes  were  scarcely  recognized.  Everything  was  the 
manifestation  of  God,  and  all  events  were  intimately 
related  to  him.  Eet  the  reader  examine  any  of  the 


4  “  Temptation  no  Excuse  for  Transgression.”  ”  Bib. .Sacra,”  1873, 
p.  653.  See  also,  “  Bib:  Sacra.”  1878.  Art.  “  Doc.  of  the  Epistle  of  James,” 
by  Prof.  E-  P.  Gould,  D.D. 


230  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

Psalms  and  he  will  readily  see  this  idealistic  spirit 
which  prompted  the  writer  to  say  God  “  rode  upon  a 
cherub,  and  did  fly,  yea,  he  did  fly  upon  the  wings  of 
the  wind.  The  Lord  also  thundered  in  the  heavens, 
and  the  Highest  gave  his  voice  ;  hailstones  and  coals 
of  fire.”  As  time  continued,  the  perceptive  faculties 
became  more  active  and  discriminating,  so  that  gradu¬ 
ally,  through  many  ages  of  moral  training,  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Doctrine  of  James  is  unfolded.  For  fear  the  reader 
may  think  that  this  is  a  mere  theory  of  mine,  invented 
to  escape  supposed  difficulties,  I  desire  to  add  the  views 
of  eminent  commentators.  I11  speaking  of  the  true 
prophet  before  Ahab,  Cowles  says,  “  Micaiah  notwith¬ 
standing,  resumes,  to  describe  another  prophetic  scene 
— a  kind  of  cabinet  council  (of  course  this  is  drapery), 
location  not  given,  to  debate  the  question  how  to 
allure  Ahab  up  to  Ramoth-Gilead  to  fall  there  in  battle. 
....  In  respect  to  the  morality  of  this  transaction  as 
related  to  the  Lord,  it  meets  no  other  difficulty  than  is 
involved  in  every  case  of  God’s  providential  agency  in 
the  existence  of  sin — which  agency  is  not  a  license  for 
sinning — is  never  the  employing  of  his  moral  subjects 
to  do  the  sinning  ;  but  is  simply  leaving  the  wicked  to 
commit  sin  of  their  own  free  will,  his  shaping  hand 
being  interposed  only  to  turn  it  to  best  moral  ac¬ 
count.”  5 

Dr.  E.  P.  Barrows  says,  “The  Scriptures  ascribe 
every  actual  event  to  God  in  such  a  sense  that  it  comes 
into  the  plan  of  his  universal  providence  ;  but  they  re¬ 
ject  with  abhorrence  the  idea  that  he  can  excite  wicked 
thoughts  in  men,  or  prompt  them  to  wicked  deeds.”  6 

5  “  Hebrew  History,”  pp.  287,  288. 

6  “  Companion  to  the  Bible,”  p.  541. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


231 


The  thought  which  I  am  .seeking  to  elucidate  is 
thus  admirably  expressed  by  Dr.  John  Tulloch.  In 
speaking  of  the  Old  Testament  Doctrine  of  Sin,  he 
says  “  Facts  of  evil  ( ra ),  no  less  than  of  good,  are 
traced  upwards  to  the  Almighty  Will,  as  the  ultimate 
source  of  all  things.  This  is  true  beyond  all  question  ; 
but  it  exceeds  the  truth  to  say,  as  Kuenen  does,  that 
the  older  Israelitish  prophets  and  historians  did  not 
hesitate  to  derive  even  moral  evil  from  Jahveh.  Precise 
distinctions  of  morality  and  contingency  were  unfamil¬ 
iar  to  the  Hebrew  mind  ;  and  at  no  time  would  this 
mind  have  shrunk  from  attributing  every  form  of  evil 
accident  (however  immediately  caused  by  human  wick¬ 
edness)  to  the  Sovereign  Power,  which  did  as  it  willed 
in  heaven  and  on  earth.  But  it  is  nevertheless  true,  as 
has  been  clearly  seen  in  the  course  of  our  exposition, 
that  the  essential  idea  of  evil  in  the  Hebrew  mind  was 
so  far  from  associating  itself  with  the  Divine  Will,  that 
its  special  note  or  characteristic  was  opposition  to  this 
Will.  The  line  of  later  argument,  as  to  a  possible 
relation  of  the  Divine  Will  to  sin  (whereby  its  omnip¬ 
otence  and  yet  its  purity  should  be  preserved)  is  for¬ 
eign  to  the  Old  Testament.  It  grasps  events  concretely  ; 
it  does  not  analyze  them  in  their  origin  or  nature.”  7 

Such,  in  my  opinion  is  the  fact,  and  the  correct 
philosophy — the  consistent  explanation  of  the  fact,  is 
the  Arminian  doctrine  of  Divine  Foresight. 

God  foresees  all  the  free  actions  of  his  creatures  ; 
consequently  he  so  arranges  the  government  of  the 
world  that  wickedness  acts  upon  wickedness.  Hence, 
to  the  popular  conception,  God  does  this  or  that  sin- 

7  “  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,”  p.  96.  See  Oehler’s  O.  T.  Theol. 
Am.  e<l.,  pp.  122-154. 


232  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

ful  deed,  whereas,  in  reality,  it  is  the  individual  acting 
out  his  free  wickedness — under  the  guidance  of  the 
Divine  Omniscience.  In  this  connection  it  will  be 
profitable  to  consider  the  view  of  Olsliausen  who  says, 
“  Abstract  evil  never  appears  in  history  ;  it  is  but  evil 
personalities,  who  with  their  evil  deeds,  ever  appear 
on  the  scene  :  these,  however,  exist  in  necessary  com¬ 
bination  with  the  work  of  good,  because,  in  every  evil 
being,  and  even  in  the  devil  and  his  angels,  the  powers 
themselves  with  which  they  act  are  of  God,  who  be¬ 
stows  on  them  at  the  same  time  both  the  form  in  which, 
and  the  circumstances  under  which,  they  may  come 
into  manifestation . Though  the  whole  develop¬ 

ment  and  form  of  evil  in  the  world’s  history  depends 
upon  God,  so  far  as  it  is  he  who  causes  the  evil  to  be  evil 
in  that  particular  form  in  which  he  is  so,  yet  the  being 
evil,  in  itself,  is  the  simple  consequence  of  the  abuse 

of  man’s  own  freewill . All  evil,  in  God’s  hand, 

serves  but  for  a  foil  and  for  the  promotion  of  good,  and 
yet  his  wrath  burns  with  justice  against  it,  because 
it  originates  only  in  the  wickedness  of  the  creature 
which  receives  its  punishment  from  righteousness. 

.  .  .  .  Though,  therefore,  in  virtue  of  his  attributes 
of  omniscience  and  omnipotence.  God  assuredly  fore¬ 
knows  who  they  are  that  will  resist  his  grace,  and 
causes  them  to  appear  in  definite  forms  in  history,  he 
knows  them  only  as  persons  who,  by  abuse  of  their 
own  free  will,  have  become  evil  and  continue  so.”  8 
Let  us  examine  some  passages  in  which  God  is 
said  to  have  hardened  the  heart  and  to  have  blinded 
the  eyes  of  men.  “And  I  will  harden  Pharaoh’s 
heart,  that  he  shall  follow  after  them  ;  and  I  will  be 


8  “Commentary.”  Vol.  IV.  pp.  79,  80,  92. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


2  33 


honored  upon  Pharaoh,  and  upon  all  his  host  ;  that 
the  Egyptians  may  know  that  I  am  the  Lord  ”  (Exo¬ 
dus  xiv.  4).  See  also  chapters  vii.,  viii. ,  ix.  “But 
Sihon,  King  of  Heshbon  would  not  let  us  pass  by 
him  ;  for  the  Eord  thy  God  hardened  his  spirit,  and 
made  his  heart  obstinate  that  he  might  deliver  him 
into  thy  hand  ”  ( Deut.  ii.  30).  Eli  says  to  his  wicked 
sons,  ‘  ‘  If  one  man  sin  against  another,  the  judge  shall 
judge  him  ;  but  if  a  man  sin  against  the  Eord,  who 
shall  entreat  for  him  ?  Notwithstanding,  they  heark¬ 
ened  not  unto  the  voice  of  their  father,  because  the 
Eord  would  slay  them”  (1.  Sam.  ii.  25).  “  O  Eord, 

why  hast  thou  made  us  to  err  from  thy  ways,  and 
hardened  our  heart  from  thy  fear  ?  Return  for  thy 
servant’s  sake,  the  tribes  of  thine  inheritance”  (Isa. 
lxiii.  17).  “  At  that  time  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I 

thank  thee  O  Father,  Eord  of  heaven  and  earth,  be¬ 
cause  thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise  and 
prudent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes.  Even 
so,  Father  ;  for  so  it  seemed  good  in  thy  sight  ” 
(Matt.  xi.  25,  26).  “But  though  he  had  done  so 
many  miracles  before  them,  yet  they  believed  not  011 
him  ;  That  the  saying  of  Esaias  the  prophet  might  be 
fulfilled,  which  he  spake,  Eord,  who  hath  believed 
our  report  ?  and  to  whom  hath  the  arm  of  the  Eord 
been  revealed  ?  Therefore  they  could  not  believe,  be¬ 
cause  that  Esaias  said  again,  He  hath  blinded  their 
eyes,  and  hardened  their  heart ;  that  they  should  not  see 
with  their  eyes,  nor  understand  with  their  heart,  and 
be  converted,  and  I  should  heal  them”  (John  xii.  37- 
40).  “  For  the  Scripture  saith  unto  Pharaoh,  even 

for  this  same  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up  that  I 
might  shew  my  power  in  thee,  and  that  my  name 


234  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

might  be  declared  throughout  all  the  earth.  There¬ 
fore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom  he  will  have  mercy,  and 
whom  he  will  he  hardeneth  ”  (Rom.  ix.  17,  18). 

Having  no  desire  to  deny  the  legitimate  meaning 
of  these,  and  other  passages,  I  shall  not  do  as  did  a 
minister  of  wdiom  Professor  Park  says,  that  having 
selected  as  a  text  the  words,  “The  Lord  hardened 
Pharaoh’s  heart,”  announced  as  his  main  proposition, 
“The  Lord  did  not  harden  Pharaoh’s  heart.”  I  read¬ 
ily  grant  there  is  a  sense  in  which  these  declarations 
are  true.  It  is,  therefore,  pertinent  to  ask  what  are 
we  to  understand  by  these  affirmations  ?  I  can  not 
accept  the  usual  Calvinistic  interpretation,  for  the  fol¬ 
lowing  reasons:  (, a )  It  makes  a  radical  contradiction 
between  God’s  Will  and  Command.  He  tells  Pharaoh 
to  do  a  certain  thing,  yet  does  not  wish  it  done.  He 
commands  all  men  to  believe,  and  to  be  saved,  yet  he 
hardens  their  hearts  and  blinds  their  eyes  so  they  will 
not.  {b)  It  contradicts  the  axiom  that  “  God  can  not 
be  tempted  with  evil,  neither  tempteth  he  any  man.” 
(r)  It  contradicts  other  parts  of  Scripture.  God  speaks 
to  his  people  through  Jeremiah,  saying,  “  Will  ye  steal, 
murder,  and  commit  adultery,  and  swear  falsely,  and 
burn  incense  unto  Baal,  and  walk  after  other  gods 
whom  ye  know  not  ;  and  come  and  stand  before  me  in 
this  house,  which  is  called  by  my  name,  and  3ay,  We 
are  delivered  to  do  all  these  abominations  ?  ”  (Jer.  viii. 
9,  10.)  Jehovah  solemnly  warns  his  people  that  their 
wickedness  will  not  go  unpunished.  The  sacredness 
of  God’s  house  will  be  no  protection  against  his 
righteous  displeasure.  “  Behold,  to  obey  is  better 
than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams.” 

‘  ‘  And  they  have  built  the  high  places  of  Tophet, 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  235 

which  is  in  the  valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  to  burn 
their  sons  and  their  daughters  in  the  fire  ;  which  I 
commanded  them  not,  neither  came  it  into  my  heart” 
(Jer.  vii  :  31).  Cowles  says,  “  When  he  says  here  that 
he  never  commanded  it,  and  it  had  never  come  into 
his  heart,  we  must  understand  him  to  mean  that  he 
had  strictly  forbidden  it,  and  that  it  was  repulsive  and 
abominable  to  his  heart.”  In  this  connection  the 
reader  should  examine  Ezek.  xviii,  where  this  Calvin- 
istic  idea  that  God  wills  one  thing  but  commands  the 
opposite,  is  unqualifiedly  condemned. 

As  the  hardening  of  Pharaoh’s  heart  is  a  fair  ex¬ 
emplification  of  the  Calvinist’s  doctrine  I  will  take  it 
as  a  criterion  for  other  passages.  That  the  reader  may 
judge  for  himself  I  shall  quote  from  different  authori¬ 
ties  of  acknowledged  ability.  Alluding  to  Jas.  i.  13, 
14,  Moses  Stuart  says,  “  With  this  unequivocal  asser¬ 
tion  of  an  apostle  before  our  eyes,  an  assertion  bearing 
directly  on  the  specific  point  of  internal  excitement  to 
do  evil,  we  ought  not  to  take  any  position  which 
maintains  that  God  operated  directly  on  the  heart 
and  mind  of  Pharaoh,  in  order  to  harden  him  and 
make  him  more  desperate . But  having  ad¬ 

vanced  thus  far,  we  must  go  still  farther  in  order  to 
obtain  satisfaction  as  to  the  point  in  question.  This 
can  be  obtained  only  by  a  considered  and  extensive 
survey  of  the  usus  loqaendi  in  the  Scriptures,  with 
reference  to  God  as  the  author  of  all  things.  There  is 
a  sense,  in  which  he  is  the  author  of  all  things,  yea, 
of  all  actions.  He  has  created  all  things.  Under  his 
control,  and  by  his  direction  and  power,  they  come 
into  existence.  None  but  atheists  will  deny  this.” 
After  considering  such  passages  as  Isa.  vi.  10,  John 


236  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

xii.  40,  Dr.  Stuart  says,  “  Here  then  is  one  and  the 
same  case,  which  is  represented  in  three  different  ways. 
(1)  The  prophet  hardens  the  Jews.  (2)  God  does 
the  same  thing.  (3)  The  Jewish  people  do  it  them¬ 
selves.  Is  all  this  true  ;  or  is  one  part  contradictory 
to  another?  We  may  safely  answer:  It  is  all  true. 
The  prophet  is  said  to  harden  the  hearts  of  the  Jews, 
merely  because  he  is  the  instrument  of  delivering 
messages  to  them ;  while  they,  in  consequence  of 
abusing  these,  become  more  hardened  and  guilty. 
God  hardens  their  hearts,  in  that  by  his  providence  he 
sustains  them  in  life,  upholds  the  use  of  all  their 
powers,  causes  the  prophets  to  warn  and  reprove  them, 
and  places  them  in  circumstances  where  they  must  re¬ 
ceive  these  warnings  and  reproofs.  Under  this 
arrangement  of  his  providence  they  become  more 
hardened  and  wicked.  In  this  sense,  and  in  this  only, 
do  the  Scriptures  seem  to  affirm  that  he  is  concerned 
with  the  hardening  of  men’s  hearts.”  0 

The  orthodoxy  of  Dr.  Jas.  G.  Murphy,  of  Belfast, 
is  beyond  reproach.  His  remarks  are  worthy  of  care¬ 
ful  consideration.  “  The  very  patience  and  modera¬ 
tion  which  were  calculated  to  subdue  a  will  amenable 
to  reason,  only  aroused  the  resistance  and  vengeance 
of  Pharaoh.  Every  succeeding  step  in  the  procedure 
of  God  is  dictated  by  a  like  consideration  and  for¬ 
bearance.  Though  it  be  true,  therefore,  that  God  did 
harden  Pharaoh’s  heart,  yet  it  was  by  measures  that 
would  have  disarmed  the  opposition  and  commanded 
the  acquiescence  of  an  upright  mind.”  On  chap.  ix. 
12,  he  says,  “  Here  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  very 
means  that  would  have  brought  an  unbiased  and  un- 


9  “  Com.”  on  Romans,  pp.  634,  635,  636.  Sixth  E)d.,  1857. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE.  2yj 

clouded  mind  to  conviction  and  submission  only  begat 
a  stolid  and  infatuated  obstinacy  in  the  monarch  of 
Egypt.  The  course  of  the  divine  interposition  has 
been  one  of  uniform  mildness  and  forbearance,  only 
proceeding  to  judicial  chastisements  when  negotiation 
would  not  avail,  and  advancing  gradually  to  severer 
measures  only  when  the  more  gentle  were  disregarded. 
His  obduracy  is  now  come  to  such  a  pitch  of  stupidity 
that  we  can  not  catch  a  shadow  of  reason  for  his  con¬ 
duct  ;  ’  ’  On  the  words  ‘  ‘  But  for  this  cause  have  I 
raised  thee  up,”  our  author  remarks:  “Not  stricken 
thee  down  with  the  pestilence,  but  preserved  thee  from 
it  in  my  longsuffering  patience.”  1 

As  this  event  is  described  in  Romans,  Olshausen 
thinks  that  Paul  ‘  ‘  means  that  God  permitted  that 
evil  person,  who  of  his  own  free  will  resisted  all  those 
workings  of  grace  which  were  communicated  in  rich 
measure  even  to  him,  to  come  into  manifestation  at 
that  time,  and  under  these  circumstances,  in  such  a 
form  that  the  very  evil  that  was  in  him  should  even 
serve  for  the  furtherance  of  the  Kingdom  of  The  Good 
and  the  glory  of  God  ”  2 

Prof.  Cowles  thinks  that  “the  well-known  pro¬ 
clivities  and  activities  of  a  proud,  stubborn,  human 
heart,”  are  sufficient  to  satisfactorily  account  for  the 
conduct  of  Pharaoh.  “If  it  be  still  argued  that  the 
very  words  declare,  ‘  God  hardened  Pharaoh’s  heart,’ 
the  answer  is  ;  God  is  said  to  do  what  he  foresees  will 
be  done  by  others  and  done  under  such  arrangements 
of  his  providence  as  make  it  possible  and  morally  cer¬ 
tain  that  they  will  do  it.  Joseph  said  to  his  brethren 

1  “  Exodus,”  pp.  74,  97,  98.  Ed.  1868. 

2  “Com.”  p.  94.  Ed.  1861. 


238  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

(Gen.  xlv.  5,  7,  8),  ‘Be  not  angry  with  yourselves 
that  ye  sold  me  hither,  for  God  did  send  me  before  you 
to  preserve  life.  So  now  it  was  not  you  that  sent  me 
hither  but  God.’  Yet  it  is  simply  impious  to  put  the 
sin  of  selling  Joseph  into  Egypt  over  upon  God.  God 
did  it  only  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  hardened 
Pharaoh’s  heart.  He  had  a  purpose  to  subserve  by 
means  of  the  sin  of  Joseph’s  brethren :  and  he  did  no 
doubt  permit  such  circumstances  to  occur  in  his  prov¬ 
idence  as  made  that  sin  possible  and  as  resulted  in 
their  sinning,  and  in  the  remote  consequences  which 

God  anticipated .  Nothing  can  be  more  plain 

than  the  revelations  of  Scripture  concerning  God’s 
character  as  infinitely  pure  and  holy — as  a  Being  who 
not  only  can  never  sin  himself,  but  can  never  be 
pleased  to  have  others  sin,  and  above  all  can  never 
put  forth  his  power  to  make  them  sin.  God  can  not 
be  tempted  with  evil,  ‘  neither  tempteth  he  any  man.’ 
When  he  declares  so  solemnly  and  so  tenderly  :  ‘  O 
do  not  that  abominable  thing  which  I  hate,’  shall  it 
still  be  said,  But  he  puts  men  to  sinning  ;  pushes  them 
on  in  their  sin  ;  inclines  their  heart  to  sin  and  hardens 
them  to  more  and  guiltier  sinning  ?  Never  !  ”  3 

If  the  reader  will  carefully  compare  Matt.  xi.  25,  26, 
with  1.  Cor.  i.  18-26,  he  will  see  two  things,  viz.,  that 
Jesus  was  thanking  the  Father  for  a  spiritual  religion  ; 
a  religion  which  was  to  be  apprehended  by  faith  and 
not  by  sight.  As  a  consequence  of  this  spirituality,  it 
was,  is,  and  must  needs  be,  hid  unto  those,  who, 
through  self-righteousness  think  they  have  no  need  of 
a  Saviour.  Gess  as  quoted  by  Godet  in  “Luke” 
admirably  says,  “  To  pride  of  knowledge,  blindness  is 


3  “  Pentateuch,”  pp.  202,  203,  204. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


239 


the  answer ;  to  that  simplicity  of  heart  which  wishes 
truth,  revelation.” 

It  is  now  in  order  to  consider  the  words  of  Paul, 
“  Hath  not  the  potter  power  over  the  clay,  of  the  same 
lump  to  make  one  vessel  unto  honor  and  another  unto 
dishonor?  ”  (Rom.  ix.  21).  The  thought  is  partially 
revealed  in  Isa.  xxix.  16  ;  xlv.  9,  and  lxiv.  8  ;  but  in 
these  passages  the  prophet  seeks  to  disclose  the  guilt 
and  extreme  folly  of  denying  God’s  authority  as 
Creator.  Hence  Paul’ s  illustration  is  generally  referred 
to  Jer.  xviii.  6,  “O  house  of  Israel,  can  not  I  do 
with  you  as  this  potter?  saith  the  Rord.  Behold,  as 
the  clay  is  in  the  potter’s  hand,  so  are  ye  in  my  hand, 
O  house  of  Israel.  ’  ’ 

Unless,  we  have  positive  knowledge  to  the  contrary, 
it  is  fair  to  suppose  that  Paul  used  this  illustration 
according  to  its  historical  meaning.  As  thus  given 
by  Jeremiah  what  is  its  legitimate  teaching?  The 
prophet  is  told  to  go  down  to  the  potter’s  house,  where 
he  saw  him  at  work  on  the  wheels.  “  And  the  vessel 
that  he  made  of  clay  was  marred  in  the  hand  of  the 
potter  ;  so  he  made  it  again  another  vessel,  as  seemed 
good  to  the  potter  to  make  it.  ’  ’  Then  comes  the  divine 
warning,  “  O  house  of  Israel,  can  not  I  do  with  you  as 
this  potter  ?  saith  the  Rord.  Behold,  as  the  clay  is  in 
the  potter’s  hand,  so  are  ye  in  mine  hand,  O  house  of 
Israel.” 

Now,  laying  aside  all  prejudice,  let  us  see  if  we 
can  find  the  prophet’s  meaning.  Notice  (1)  The 
potter  changed  his  mind  :  he  started  to  make  some¬ 
thing  but  so  far  forth,  failed.  Then  he  made  some¬ 
thing  else.  (2)  The  reasoyi  for  this  change  was  outside 
of  the  potter  :  he  is  not  represented  as  changing  for 


240  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

some  unrevealed,  mysterious  reason,  but  the  cause  for 
the  change  is  emphatically  affirmed,  viz.,  the  temper 
of  the  clay.  (3)  This  changed  temper  necessitates 
the  changed  purpose,  and  this  is  according  to  the 
potter’s  will.  Now  I  do  not  expect  every  Calvinist 
will  concede  these  points,  but  I  challenge  him  to  prove 
their  incorrectness.  So  far  from  affording  him  any 
ground  for  his  doctrine  the  passage  directly  condemns 
his  position.  Two  important  truths  are  here  taught ; 
viz.,  (a)  God’s  power.  He  can  plant,  pluck  up,  or 
destroy  :  (£)  This  power  is  used  according  to  the  tem¬ 
per  of  those  with  whom  he  has  to  deal :  hence  he 
says  through  the  prophet,  “  If  that  nation  against 
whom  I  pronounced,  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent 
of  the  evil  that  I  thought  to  do  unto  them.  And  at 
what  instant  I  shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  and 
concerning  a  kingdom,  to  build  and  to  plant  it.  If  it 
do  evil  in  my  sight,  that  it  obey  not  my  voice,  then  I 
will  repent  of  the  good  wherewith  I  said  I  would  ben¬ 
efit  them.”  “  Tet  it  be  noted  that  this  illustration  is 
not  used  here  to  show  that  God  makes  and  moulds  the 
free  moral  activities  of  men,  even  the  free  action  of 
their  will,  according  to  his  absolute  pleasure,  allowing 
them  no  more  responsibility  or  activity  than  the  clay 
has  in  the  potter’s  hand.  This  is  neither  asserted  nor 
implied  here.  This  is  not  by  any  means  the  point  of 
the  comparison  ;  but  the  point  is,  as  we  shall  soon  see, 
that  God  can  speak  concerning  a  nation  to  pull  it  down 
and  destroy  it,  or  to  build  it  up,  and  instantly  the 
agencies  of  his  providence  prove  themselves  perfectly 

adequate  for  this  result . Note  that  God  does 

not  represent  his  power  as  in  such  a  sense  arbitrary 
and  sovereign,  that  it  has  no  respect  to  the  moral  state 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE. 


241 


of  his  creatures.  The  very  opposite  of  this  is  true. 
God  shows  that  he  exercises  his  agency  so  as  to  meet 
their  moral  state  precisely,  sparing  the  penitent  and 
destroying  the  incorrigibly  wicked.”  4 

As  this  is  the  true  teaching  of  the  passage  it  is 
more  than  probable  that  Paul  used  it  in  its  historical 
application,  viz.,  the  rejection  and  acceptance  of  na¬ 
tions.  It  is  conceded  by  eminent  Calvinists  that  in  the 
ninth  chapter  of  this  Epistle,  Paul’s  primary  object  is 
to  elucidate  how,  or  for  what  reason,  the  Jews  as  a  na¬ 
tion  were  rejected.  Bloomfield  says,  ‘‘Strange  some 
can  not  or  will  not  see  that  in  all  this  (comp.  Gen. 
xxv.  23)  there  is  only  reference  to  the  election  of  na¬ 
tions,  not  of  individuals  ;  a  point  on  which  all  the 
fathers  up  to  Augustine  (a  slight  authority,  owing  to 
his  ignorance  of  the  original  languages  where  idioms 
are  concerned)  and  all  the  most  judicious  modern  com¬ 
mentators  are  agreed.”  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says, 
“  With  the  eighth  chapter  the  discussion  of  the  plan  of 
salvation,  and  its  immediate  consequences,  was  brought 
to  a  close.  The  consideration  of  the  calling  of  the 
Gentiles,  and -the  rejection  of  the  Jews,  commences 
with  the  ninth,  and  extends  to  the  end  of  the  elev¬ 
enth.”  Dr.  MacKnight  says,  ‘‘Although  some  pas¬ 
sages  in  this  chapter  which  pious  and  learned  men 
have  understood  of  the  election  and  reprobation  of 
individuals,  are  in  the  foregoing  illustration  inter¬ 
preted  of  the  election  of  nations  to  be  the  people  of 
God,  and  to  enjoy  the  advantage  of  an  external  reve¬ 
lation,  and  of  their  losing  these  honorable  distinc¬ 
tions,  the  reader  must  not,  on  that  account,  suppose 
the  author  rejects  the  doctrines  of  the  decree  and  fore- 


4  Cowles. 


242  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

knowledge  of  God.  These  doctrines  are  taught  in 
other  passages  of  Scripture ;  see  Rom.  viii.  29.” 
Alford  says,  “  It  must  also  be  remembered  that,  what¬ 
ever  inferences,  with  regard  to  God’s  disposal  of  in¬ 
dividuals  may  justly  lie  from  the  Apostle’s  arguments, 
the  assertions  here  made  by  him  are  universally 
spoken  with  a  national  reference.  Of  the  eternal  sal¬ 
vation  or  rejection  of  any  individual  Jew  there  is  here 
no  question.”  Dr.  Schaff  in  Range  says,  “  The  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  predestination  of  a  part  of  the  human 
race  to  eternal  perdition  by  no  means  follows  from  the 
statements  of  these  verses,  6-13.”  Again,  “The 
Apostle  is  not  treating  here  at  all  of  eternal  perdition 
and  eternal  blessedness,  but  of  a  temporal  preference 
and  disregard  of  nations  in  the  gradual  historical  de¬ 
velopment  of  the  plan  of  redemption,  which  will 
finally  include  all  (Chap.  xi.  25,  32),  and  hence  the 
descendants  of  Esau,  who  stand  figuratively  for  all  the 
Gentiles.”5 

It  is,  therefore,  reasonably  settled  that  Paul  used 
the  illustration  of  the  potter  in  the  same  sense  as  did 
Jeremiah  ;  but  this,  instead  of  proving- the  Calvinist 
right,  unmistakably  condemns  him  ;  for  beyond  all 
legitimate  controversy,  the  passage  teaches  that  the 
clay  ‘‘is  a  living  free  agent,  the  Potter  is  a  wise,  im¬ 
partial  divine  Reason,  and  the  being  made  a  vessel  of 
honor  or  dishonor  is  conditioned  upon  the  voluntary 
temper  and  doing  of  the  agent.  Salvation  and  dam¬ 
nation  depended  upon  a  momentous  pivotal  if ;  the 
two  alternatives  of  that  if  were,  ‘  turn  from  evil  ’  and 
salvation  ;  or,  ‘  do  evil’  and  destruction.”  G  This  must 


s  Page  328. 
e  Dr.  D.  D.  Whedon. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


243 


be  so.  Whatever  reference  this  chapter  has  to  eternal 
salvation  must  be  interpreted  according  to  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  prophet.  As  God  deals  with  nations 
according  to  their  temper  or  disposition,  so  does  he 
act  toward  individuals  in  their  eternal  acceptance  or 
rejection.  To  deny  this  is  to  affirm  that  a  primary 
application  is  of  less  importance  than  a  secondary. 
Dr.  Howard  Crosby  is  an  acceptable  minister  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  The  following  is  his  testimony 
concerning  the  meaning  of  this  so-called  Calvinistic 
proof- text.  He  says,  ‘  ‘  This  text  is  quoted  by  many 
as  showing  that  God  arbitrarily  makes  some  men  for 
heaven  and  others  for  hell.  The  whole  of  God’s 
gospel  is  thus  set  aside.  He  wishes  all  men  to  be 
saved  (1.  Tim.  ii.  4).  He  does  not  wish  any  to  perish 
(11.  Pet.  iii.  9).  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave 
his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life. 
(John  iii.  16).  He  sent  his  servants  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature  (Mark  xvi.  15).  Jesus  says 
to  all,  ‘  Come  unto  Me  ’  (Matt.  xi.  28).  And  yet 
some  would  have  this  one  text  in  Rom.  ix.  21  over¬ 
throw  the  whole  tenor  of  the  gospel,  as  above  illus¬ 
trated.  Is  it  not  wiser  to  imagine  a  false  exegesis  here  ? 

‘  ‘  Let  us  see  what  this  text  means  ?  The  simile  of 
the  potter  is  taken  from  Jer.  xviii.  1-10  ;  and  we  must 
go  there  if  we  would  see  the  apostle’s  meaning.  In 
that  passage  the  Lord  says  that  he,  as  a  potter,  will 
cast  away  the  vessel  which  was  marred  under  his 
hands  and  make  a  new  one — that  is,  he  will  set  aside 
the  Jews  and  establish  a  Gentile  church.  The  whole 
argument  of  the  apostle  concern  the  rejection  of  the 
Jews  from  being  the  church  of  God,  and  has  no  refer- 


244  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

ence  to  individual  salvation.  He  shows  that  God 
narrowed  the  church  seed  in  Isaac  and  in  Jacob,  and 
he  can  now  change  it  again  from  Israel  to  the  Gentile 
world  ;  that  there  was  no  obligation  to  keep  the  line 
of  ordinances  in  Abraham’s  seed,  and  that  the  conduct 
of  Israel,  in  rejecting  Christ,  had  made  it  necessary 
for  God,  after  much  patient  endurance  (ver.  22)  to  cast 
off  Israel  and  form  a  new  church.  In  the  course  of 
the  argument  he  answers  the  objection  that  God  wras 
unrighteous,  by  showing  (vs.  14-18)  that  to  Moses, 
who  was  obedient,  he  showed  mercy,  and  Pharaoh, 
who  was  rebellious,  he  hardened  (by  letting  him 
harden  himself).  He  distributes  his  mercy  and  his 
wrath  as  he  will  ;  but  his  will  is  interpreted  as  dis¬ 
tinguishing  between  the  obedient  and  disobedient. 
The  potter  is  referred  to,  not  as  from  the  first  ordaining 
a  man  to  dishonor,  but  as  devoting  a  bad  man  to  dis¬ 
honor.  The  figure  can  not  be  pressed.  The  vessels, 
in  the  making,  have  a  power  to  resist  the  potter.  The 
Jews  resisted  God’s  grace  when  he  would  have  made 
them  to  honor,  and  therefore  he  made  them  to  dis¬ 
honor.  That  is  all  this  text  teaches.  To  read  it 
without  regarding  the  apostle’s  argument  in  the  ninth 
and  tenth  chapters,  and  without  regarding  Jeremiah’s 
meaning,  from  whom  the  allusion  is  drawn,  is  to  wrest 
Scripture  and  make  a  most  horrible  and  unscriptural 
doctrine — a  doctrine  which,  logically  and  imperatively, 
makes  God  the  author  of  sin.”  7 

The  last  class  of  passages  to  which  we  will  turn 

7  “  The  Preacher  and  Homiletic  Monthly,”  1881,  pp.  350,  351.  Article, 
‘‘Light  on  Important  Texts.”  The  question  involved  in  this  passage  virtu¬ 
ally  settles  the  whole  subject.  Considering  the  position  of  Dr.  Crosby,  his 
ability  as  an  exegete,  his  well-known  conscientiousness,  his  interpretation 
is  peculiarly  valuable. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


245 


our  attention  is  composed  of  such  texts  as  speak  of  the 
non-elect  as  foreordained  to  destruction.  “  Unto  you 
therefore  which  believe  he  is  precious  ;  but  unto  them 
which  be  disobedient,  the  stone  which  the  builders 
disallowed,  the  same  is  made  the  head  of  the  corner, 
And  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  rock  of  offence,  even 
to  them  which  stumble  at  the  word,  being  disobedient ; 
whereunto  also  they  were  appointed”  (1.  Pet.  ii.  7,  8). 
“  For  there  are  certain  men  crept  in  unawares,  who 
were  before  of  old  ordained  to  this  condemnation  ; 
ungodly  men,  turning  the  grace  of  our  God  unto 
lasciviousness,  and  denying  the  only  Lord  God,  and 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ”  (Jude  4). 

The  Arminian  finds  no  trouble  with  these  passages. 
If  wicked  men  will  not  repent,  will  not  turn  to  God 
and  live,  then,  like  Judas,  they  shall  go  to  their  own 
place.  God,  foreseeing  this,  unerringly  knowing  their 
ultimate  choice  has  eternally  rejected,  and  in  this 
sense,  foreordained  them  to  destruction.  Dr.  Thomas 
W.  Jenkyns’  comments  on  the  passage  in  Peter  are 
admirable.  “  God  exhibits  his  Son  as  the  foundation 
of  salvation  to  men.  In  this  character  ‘  he  is  disal¬ 
lowed  of  men  ’ — they  will  not  submit  to  it,  but  are 
‘  disobedient  *  to  the  arrangement.  As  they  will  not 
comply  and  obey,  they  stumble  and  fall  and  perish, 
and  that  according  to  the  ‘  appointed  ’  order  of  the 
provision.  Are  we  from  this  to  infer  that  they  were 
appointed  to  disobey  and  stumble  ?  What  !  that  they 
were  appointed  to  disallow  Christ,  and  yet  be  blamed 
and  punished  for  it  ?  The  passage  teaches  no  such 
thing.  It  is  an  ‘  appointment  ’  of  the  constitution  of 
providence  that  whosoever  will  not  eat  food  will  die.”  8 


8  “The  Extent  of  the  Atonement,’’  p.  222. 


CHAPTER  V. 


The  Foreknowledge  of  God.  How  Related 

to  His  Will. 

“  .  .  .  .  He  is  a  being,  not  who  computes,  but 
who,  by  the  eternal  necessity  even  of  his  nature,  in¬ 
tuits  everything.  His  foreknowledge  does  not  depend 
on  his  will,  or  the  adjustment  of  motives  to  make  us 
will  thus  or  thus,  but  he  foreknows  everything  first 
conditionally,  in  the  world  of  possibility,  before  he 
creates,  or  determines  anything  to  be,  in  the  world  of 
fact.  Otherwise,  all  his  purposes  would  be  grounded 
in  ignorance,  not  in  wisdom,  and  his  knowledge  would 
consist  in  following  after  his  will,  to  learn  what  his 

will  has  blindly  determined . If,  then,  God 

foreknows,  or  intuitively  knows,  all  that  is  in  the  pos¬ 
sible  system  and  the  possible  man,  without  calcula¬ 
tion,  he  can  have  little  difficulty,  after  that,  in  fore¬ 
knowing  the  actual  man,  who  is  nothing  but  the 
possible  in  the  world  of  possibles,  set  on  foot  and 
become  actual  in  the  world  of  actuals.  So  far,  there¬ 
fore,  as  the  doctrine  of  Edwards  was  contrived  to  sup¬ 
port  the  certainty  of  God’s  foreknowledge,  and  lay  a 
basis  for  the  systematic  government  of  the  world  and 
the  universal  sovereignty  of  God’s  purposes,  it  appears 
to  be  quite  unnecessary.” 

— Rev.  Horace  Biishncll,  D.  D. 


246 


CHAPTER  V. 


The  Foreknoweedge  oe  God.  How  Reeated  to 

His  Wiee. 

This  is  the  last  stronghold  of  Calvinism.  We 
have  examined  the  different  positions  of  this  system 
of  theology  in  the  light  of  Scripture  and  have  found 
them  radically  defective.  Calvinists  not  only  con¬ 
tradict  themselves,  but  they  are  led  to  deny  the  funda¬ 
mental  utterances  of  that  Word  which  was  given  to 
man  for  his  spiritual  comfort  and  guidance.  Com¬ 
pelled  to  forsake  the  field  of  limited  atonement,  infant 
condemnation,  faith  as  a  direct  gift  of  God,  and  repro¬ 
bation  as  an  act  of  pure  sovereignty,  the  Calvinist 
has  now  intrenched  himself  behind  the  breastworks  of 
Divine  Foreknowledge,  confidently  believing  that 
here  at  least  is  a  citadel  which  can  not  possibly  be 
taken.  This,  however,  I  propose  to  do,  and  hence  in 
this  Chapter  I  shall  endeavor  to  show  that  the  Calvin- 
istic  doctrine  of  Foreknowledge  is  not,  and  can  not  be 
the  doctrine  of  the  Bible. 

SECTION  i. 

Is  Divine  Foreknowledge  Possible  f 

The  term  foreknowledge  of  God  refers  to  the  divine 
omniscience  of  what  his  creatures  will  freely  do  in 
time.  It  is  the  knowledge  of  that  which  is  to  be. 
We  know  events  only  as  they  have  occurred,  or  are 

247 


248  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

transpiring,  whereas,  to  the  divine  Mind  they  already 
exist  ;  hence  he  knows  them  before  they  actually 
occur. 

Some  theologians,  however,  deny  this  divine  fore¬ 
knowledge  on  the  ground  that  its  acceptance  necessi¬ 
tates  the  denial  of  human  freedom  and  responsibility. 
Thus  we  are  told  by  Weisse  “  God  knows  the  future 
in  so  far  as  it  follows  with  organic  necessity  out  of  the 
past  and  present,  but  he  does  not  know  it  in  so  far  as, 
while  resting  upon  the  general  ground  of  this  neces¬ 
sity,  it  is  yet  subject  to  the  spontaneity  of  the  intra¬ 
divine  and  the  extra-divine  nature,  that  is,  to  the 
freedom  of  the  intra-divine  and  the  extra-divine 
will.”  1 

Martensen  says:  “An  unconditional  foreknowl¬ 
edge  is  unquestionably  inconsistent  with  the  freedom 
of  creatures  in  so  far  as  freedom  admits  of  discretionary 
choice  ;  it  unquestionably  precludes  the  undetermined, 
which  is  in  fact  inseparable  from  the  notion  of  a  free 
development  in  time.  Only  that  reality  which  is  per 
sc  rational  and  necessary  can  be  the  object  of  an  un¬ 
conditional  foreknowledge,  but  not  that  reality  which 
might  have  been  otherwise  than  as  it  is  ;  for  this  latter 
can  be  foreknown  only  as  a  possibility,  as  an  event¬ 
uality.”  2 

To  the  same  effect  speaks  Rothe.  “  If  God  infalli¬ 
bly  foreknows  with  apodictic  certainty,  all  the  actions 
of  men,  then  these  actions  must  be  absolutely  certain 
beforehand  ;  but  (seeing  that,  as  being  partially  dis¬ 
cretionary,  they  can  not  rest  absolutely  on  inner  neces¬ 
sity  )  they  could  be  absolutely  certain  beforehand  only 


1  “  Philos.  Dogmat.”  Vol.  I. ,  p.  609. 

2  Christl.  Dogmat.”  (2d  edition)  p.  249. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE- 


249 


through  a  divine  predetermination  :  but  this  would  not 
only  preclude  the  free  self-determination  of  man,  but 
also  make  God  the  author  of  sin.  That  which  in  God’s 
knowledge  stands  objectively  fixed,  can  not  be  for  man, 
in  his  present  unperfected  state,  a  matter  of  free  deter¬ 
mination  ;  the  absolute  foreknowing  on  the  part  of 
God,  of  the  actions  of  as  yet  not  perfected  personal 
creatures  is  unavoidably  a  predetermining  of  the 
same.  ’  ’ 3 

To  this  class  of  thinkers  belongs  Dr.  L.  D.  McCabe. 
While  his  works,  “  The  Foreknowledge  of  God,  and 
Cognate  Themes,”  and  “Divine  Nescience  of  Future 
Contingencies  a  Necessity,”  present  some  original 
features  as  to  the  methods  of  reconciliation,  his  con¬ 
clusions  substantially  agree  with  those  of  Rothe  and 
Martensen  ;  his  peculiarities  will  be  noticed  as  we  pro¬ 
ceed.  While  I  can  not  expect  to  give  an  exhaustive 
expose  of  the  different  theories  against  the  Arminian 
doctrine  of  God’s  foreknowledge,  yet  a  spirit  of  fair¬ 
ness  constrains  me  to  present  a  clear  outline  of  the 
doctrine  of  divine  nescience.  Rothe’s  view  is  as  follows  : 

“  5.  The  notion  of  a  divine  predetermination  of  all 
things  precludes  effectual  will-determinations  on  the 
part  of  the  creature,  and  hence,  renders  earnest  per¬ 
sonal  effort  at  such  determinations  a  psychological 
impossibility. 

“  6.  The  traditional  makeshift  to  safeguard  creat- 
ural  freedom,  namely,  by  saying  that  God  foresees  free 
actions  as  free,  not  only  fails  of  its  purpose,  but  also 
places  God  in  an  absurd  relation  of  dependence  on  his 


3  “Theological  Ethics.”  Translated  by  Professor  J.  P.  Eacroix,  to  whom 
I  am  indebted  for  the  extracts  from  Weisse  and  Martensen.  “  Bib.  Sacra,” 
1875,  pp.  138,  149,  150. 


25O  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

supposed  foreknowledge  of  the  manner  in  which  creat¬ 
ures  will  act,  in  his  constructing  of  his  world  plan. 

“  7.  There  are  two  essentially  different  phases  of 
freedom  :  first,  in  morally  imperfect  beings  ;  second, 
in  the  morally  perfected.  The  actions  of  the  .second 
class  can  be  absolutely  foreseen  by  the  Infinite  Mind, 
for  such  beings  will  always  act  according  to  absolute 
right.  Given  a  specific  moral  environment,  and  their 
actions  will  correspond  thereto  with  moral  necessity. 
There  will  no  longer  be  any  scope  for  discretion.  They 
will  always  follow  the  highest  motive.  But  the  actions 
of  the  first  class,  so  long  as  they  have  not  as  yet 
attained  to  absolute  perfection  in  kind,  are  subject  to 
subjective  discretion  or  caprice,  and  hence  can  only  be 
pre-co  njectured. 

“8.  The  formula,  that  God  foreknows  future  free 
actions  as  free ,  involves  a  self-contradiction.  The  free, 
in  the  sense  of  the  discretionarily  free,  can  not  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  be  foreknown. 

“  9.  To  predicate  of  God  the  non  knowing  of  future 
free  creatural  actions,  is  not  to  limit  the  divine  omnis¬ 
cience.  Even  as  omnipotence  is  not  an  ability  to  work 
the  self-contradictory  (c.  g.,  that  two  units  are  as  many 
as  five),  so  omniscience  is  not  an  ability  to  know  the 
per  se  unknowable.  Omniscience  knows  all  possible 
objects  of  knowledge  ;  namely,  all  the  past,  all  the 
present,  and  all  the  future  so  far  as  it  is  logically  con¬ 
tained  in  causes  now  in  operation,  and  which  will  not 
be  interfered  with  in  the  future, — but  nothing  farther. 

“10.  To  presuppose  the  divine  foreknowledge  of 
absolutely  everything,  sacrifices  the  freedom  of  God. 
It  implies  that  all  that  is  to  be  is  already  absolutely 
objectively  fixed,  and  hence,  that  God  has  absolutely 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


251 


chained  his  own  hands  from  all  eternity,  having  once 
and  for  all  set  the  universe  upon  the  grooves  of  neces¬ 
sary  sequence,  and  having  sketched  out  in  an  immu¬ 
table  scheme  all  the  exercises  of  his  freedom  in  which 
he  will  dare  indulge  himself  in  the  whole  scope  of 
eternity. 

“  ii.  The  presupposition  of  a  divine  foreknowledge 
from  eternity,  of  absolutely  everything,  leaves  to  God, 
during  the  lapse  of  the  whole  sweep  of  universal  his¬ 
tory,  no  other  role  than  that  of  an  idle  spectator. 

“  12.  To  make  the  divine  world-plan  dependent 
upon  the  foreseen  actions  of  creatures,  is  to  reverse  the 
proper  relation  of  dependence  between  God  and  the 
creature.  This  plan  is,  in  this  view,  not  a  broad, 
solid  road  leading  through  the  course  of  world-history, 
such  as  the  Infinite  Mind  might  have  preferred  it,  but 
it  is  a  narrow,  tortuous,  oft-interrupted  outline,  abound¬ 
ing  in  special  provisions,  trap-doors,  ambuscades, 
checks,  hedges,  and  other  specifics,  such  as  God  fore¬ 
saw  would,  from  time  to  time,  become  necessary,  in 
that  he  foresaw  that  here  and  there  his  creatures  would 
choose  this  or  that  abnormal  course  of  action. 

“13.  The  only  possible  method  of  solving  the  con¬ 
tradiction  between  the  traditional  form  of  the  doctrine 
of  omniscience  and  the  real  admission  of  creatural 
freedom  is  to  modify  our  conception  of  the  doctrine  of 
omniscience  in  such  a  manner  as  that  it  shall  not 
include  an  absolute  knowledge  of  so  much  of  the 
future  as  depends  on  the  choice  of  imperfect  moral 
creatures. 

“14.  The  religious  interest  calls  for  this  modifica¬ 
tion.  On  the  hypothesis  that  the  future  fate  of  all 
men  stands  already  objectively  fixed  in  the  foreknowl- 


252  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

edge  of  God,  real  and  earnest  prayer  on  the  part  of 
man  becomes  psychologically  impossible.”  4 

It  must  be  confessed  Dr.  Rothe  has  made  the  diffi¬ 
culties  of  the  old  view  quite  formidable.  Doubtless 
there  are  difficulties  in  all  of  the  so-called  methods  of  rec¬ 
onciling  the  omniscience  of  God  with  the  free  actions 
of  men  ;  hence,  the  question  is  not,  What  view  pre¬ 
sents  no  difficulties  ?  but,  What  theory  or  supposition 
presents  the  least  difficulty  ?  If,  on  a  fair  examination, 
the  views  of  Rothe  seem  to  be  more  in  accordance  with 
the  truths  of  reason  and  Scripture,  they  deserve,  and 
shall  have,  my  cordial  acceptance.  I  will  not  presume 
to  think  that  my  observations  on  this  perplexing 
subject  will  prove  satisfactory  to  all  readers  ;  but  I 
would  respectfully  ask  a  careful  consideration  of  the 
following  strictures  on  the  solution  of  Dr.  Rothe. 

(1)  To  what  extent  does  Dr.  Rothe  predicate  moral 
perfection  of  free  human  creatures  ? 

Suppose  we  grant  the  truthfulness  of  the  seventh 
proposition  that  the  divine  foresight  may  be  affirmed 
of  the  actions  of  the  morally  perfected,  the  question 
instantly  presents  itself,  At  what  stage  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  life  is  a  person  morally  perfected  ?  So  far  as  I 
can  learn  Dr.  Rothe  does  not  inform  us  :  we  can,  there¬ 
fore,  only  tell  approximately.  Doubtless  if  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  moral  perfection — in  the  sense  of  Dr. 
Rothe,  where  a  being  “will  always  act  according  to 
absolute  right” — it  is  attained  at  different  ages, 
according  to  the  person’s  native  disposition,  circum¬ 
stances  and  opportunities.  But  in  all  seriousness  is 
there  such  a  moral  perfection  ?  We  have  heard  much 

4  A  resume  ot'Rothe’s  view  by  Prof,  Lacroix  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  1875.  pp. 
I55-I57- 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  253 

of  “Christian  Perfection,"  “Holiness,”  “Sanctifica¬ 
tion,”  not  only  from  the  many  works  published  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  church  but  also  from  the  noble 
men  of  Oberlin,  but  I  have  yet  to  see  or  hear  of  a 
work  of  any  recognized  authority  teaching  a  moral 
perfection,  possible  or  actual,  in  which  “beings  will 
always  act  according  to  absolute  right.”  Beyond  all 
controversy,  if  these  words  mean  anything  they  un¬ 
qualifiedly  assert  that  after  the  attainment  of  this 
moral  perfection  the  soul  never  sins, — no,  not  in  the 
slightest  degree,  otherwise  he  would  not  always  act 
according  to  absolute  right.  The  following  testimony 
is  from  Dr.  J.  T.  Crane  who  is  in  a  position  to  know 
whereof  he  affirms  :  ‘  ‘  Though  faith  may  never 

utterly  fail,  nor  love  grow  cold,  nor  obedience  be  for¬ 
gotten,  nor  devotion  die,  yet  the  most  faithful,  devo¬ 
tional,  and  obedient  child  of  God  will  humble  himself 
in  the  dust  at  the  remembrance  of  his  infinite  obliga¬ 
tions  to  his  Creator  and  Redeemer,  and  the  poor  re¬ 
turns  which  he  is  making.  Thus,  if  we  assume  that 
the  intent  is  right  and  the  purpose  all- controlling,  the 
service  will  be  imperfect,  marred  in  its  character  by 
lack  of  knowledge  and  error  of  judgment,  and  de¬ 
ficient  in  degree ;  and  sinless  obedience,  in  the  abso¬ 
lute  sense  of  the  term,  is  utterty  impossible . 

Wesley  repudiated  the  doctrine,  declaring  that  he 
never  used  the  phrase  ‘  sinless  perfection  ’  lest  he 
should  ‘  seem  to  contradict  himself.  ’  He  steadfastly 
held  that  the  holiest  of  men  need  Christ  to  atone  for 
their  omissions,  shortcomings,  and  mistakes  in  judg¬ 
ment  and  practice,  all  of  which  he  pronounces  ‘  devia¬ 
tions  from  the  perfect  law.’  ”  5 


5  “  Meth.  Quarterly  Review.”  1878,  p.  692. 


254  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

President  Jas.  H.  Fairchild  in  speaking  of  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  sanctification  at  Oberlin  remarks,  “There  is 
no  promise  in  God’s  Word  upon  which  a  believer  can 
plant  himself  in  present  faith,  and  secure  his  stability 
in  faith,  and  obedience  for  all  the  future,  so  that  we 
can  say  of  him  that  he  is  permanently  sanctified.”  6 

Where  is  the  Old,  or  New  Testament  saint  of  whom 
it  may  be  said,  he  had  attained  unto  that  moral  per¬ 
fection  that  he  always  acted  according  to  absolute 
right  ?  To  be  sure,  “  Enoch  walked  with  God  and  he 
was  not,  for  God  took  him.”  But  if  this  was  a  divine 
seal  of  his  moral  perfection,  it  should  equally  apply 
in  the  translation  of  Elijah,  who,  while  one  of  the 
noblest  prophets  was  somewhat  distrustful  of  God’s 
care.  The  truth  is,  this  moral  perfection  does  not, 
and  can  not  exist  on  the  earth  ;  hence,  according  to 
Rothe’s  dictum,  it  is  not  to  be  affirmed  of  the  divine 
foreknowledge. 

(2)  Rothe’s  solution  does  not  escape  the  same 
difficulties  which  he  predicates  of  the  accepted  theory. 
If  this  objection  is  true,  his  entire  argument  is  seri¬ 
ously  impaired.  In  my  opinion  such  is  the  fact.  It 
is  susceptible  of  verification  in  three  different  ways, 
namely  :  (a)  In  proposition  six  we  are  told  that  to 
say  God  foresees  free  actions  as  free,  “  places  God  in 
absurd  relation  of  dependence  on  his  supposed  fore¬ 
knowledge  of  the  manner  in  which  creatures  will  act, 
in  his  constructing  his  world-plan.”  Beyond  all  dis¬ 
pute,  the  Arminian  theology  conceives  the  divine  fore¬ 
knowledge  as  the  ground  of  God’s  moral  government. 
The  Arminian  affirms  that  in  the  natural  world  God  has 
acted  and  does  act  independently  ;  but  that  so  far  as  he 

6  “  Cong’l  Quarterly,”  1876,  p.  249. 


) 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


255 


is  related  to  moral  beings,  his  moral  government  is 
conditioned  on  the  free  acts  of  his  creatures.  As  I 
understand  Dr.  Rothe  he  calls  this  “absurd.”  But 
let  us  see  if  his  view  is  not  liable  to  the  same  charge  ? 
By  “world-plan’’  must  be  meant  the  whole  plan  of 
God  :  this  plan,  so  far  as  it  concerns  moral  beings  is, 
or  is  not  conditioned  upon  the  Tree  acts  of  moral  creat¬ 
ures.  If  unconditioned,  we  have  the  doctrine  of 
absolute  determination  which  forever  precludes  all  idea 
of  moral  freedom.  This  our  respected  author  can  not 
accept  :  he  is  an  earnest  advocate  of  moral  freedom  : 
Consequently  the  “  world-plan^’  in  its  moral  relations, 
is  conditioned.  Yes,  to  be  sure  :  this  is  granted  by 
Rothe  :  ‘  ‘  This  world-plan  settles  immutabty  the 

world-goal,  as  well  as  also  the  organic  series  of  logic¬ 
ally  necessary  stages  and  development  crises  through 
which  the  world  can  be  brought  to  this  goal.  More 
than  this  is  not  predetermined.  Most  emphatically  the 
individual  self-determination  of  personal  creatures  is 
not  infringed  upon  by  the  divine  world-plan.”7 
Hence  the  conclusion  is  irresistible  that  even  on  the 
theory  of  Dr.  Rothe,  God  is  dependent  on  the  free 
actions  of  human  creatures.  The  fact  is  the  same, 
while  the  method  is  different.  Nay,  of  the  two  sup¬ 
positions  let  the  reader  judge  which  is  the  more  absurd. 
Dr.  Rothe  says,  God  does  foresee  some — the  actions  of 
those  morally  perfected,  who  always  act  according  to 
absolute  right.  Is  he  not  so  far  forth  dependent  ? 
Dr.  Rothe  says  that  God  can,  and  probably  does  closely 
calculate  on  what  the  free  actions  of  men  will  be.  Is 
he  not  so  far  forth  dependent  ?  '  Again  he  says,  ‘  ‘  How¬ 
ever  fortuitous  and  capricious  may  be  the  play  of  self- 


7  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  1875,  p.  141. 


256  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

determining  creatural  causes  in  the  world,  nevertheless 
God  (to  whom  nothing  unprovided  for  or  surprising 
can  happen)  constantly  embraces  with  his  all -compre¬ 
hending  vision,  the  whole  complex  web  of  individual 
volitions,  beholds  its  bearing  upon  the  plan  of  his 
world-government,  and  has  it,  at  every  moment  and 
at  every  point  in  the  unlimited  power  of  his  omnipo¬ 
tence,  so  that  he  can  irresistibly  turn  and  direct  it,  as 
a  whole,  as  is  at  any  time  required  by  its  teleological 
relation  to  his  unchangeable  world-plan.”8  Dr.  Rothe 
agrees  with  the  Arminian  that  the  moral  government 
of  God  is  conditioned*  on  the  free  actions  of  human 
creatures  :  but  thinks  a  partial  foresight,  a  close  cal¬ 
culation,  and  an  infinite  watchfulness  and  unlimited 
power,  which  can  not  be  surprised  nor  overcome,  less  * 
absurd  than  an  unerring  foresight  which  at  once  does 
away  with  all  calculations,  and  at  the  same  time  pos¬ 
sesses  all  the  necessary  watchfulness  and  power,  (b) 
So  far  as  Rothe  grants  any  divine  foresight,  and  so  far 
as  the  Infinite  Mind  can  calculate,  in  the  same  propor¬ 
tion  is  his  view  liable  to  the  same  charge  which  he 
makes  against  the  accepted  theory  in  proposition  ten, 
viz.,  “  To  presuppose  the  divine  forknowledge  of  abso¬ 
lutely  everything,  sacrifices  the  freedom  of  God.” 
This  is  evident  at  a  glance.  If  the  freedom  of  God  is 
sacrificed  by  his  foreknowing  everything,  then  it  is 
sacrificed  in  the  exact  proportion  as  he  foresees  the 
actions  of  those  morally  perfected,  and  also  as  he  can 
make  a  close  calculation  of  what  free  creatures  will  do. 

(c)  The  same  line  of  argument  is  legitimate  con¬ 
cerning  proposition  eleven  :  viz.,  that  the  Arminian 
doctrine  ‘  ‘  leaves  to  God,  during  the  lapse  of  the 


8 


p.  141 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


257 


whole  sweep  of  universal  history,  no  other  role  than 
that  of  an  idle  spectator.”  Supposing  this  to  be  true, 
and  supposing  that  the  number  of  those  morally  per¬ 
fected,  is  any  perceptible  percentage  of  the  human 
race,  then  so  far  forth,  God  is  an  idle  spectator.  Then 
so  far  forth  as  the  Infinite  Mind  can  calculate  what 
the  actions  of  men  will  be,  he  is  also  an  idle  spectator. 
In  a  word,  when  Dr.  Rothe  confesses  that  God  has 
some  foresight,  and  also  possesses  a  marvelous  power 
of  calculation,  he  has  exposed  himself  to  the  same  line 
of  argument  with  which  he  seeks  to  demolish  the 
accepted  doctrine. 

(3)  Dr.  Rothe’ s  objections  against  the  Arminian 
doctrine  are  not  consistent.  In  the  eleventh  proposi¬ 
tion  we  are  told  that  the  accepted  doctrine  of  divine 
foreknowledge,  “leaves  to  God,  during  the  lapse  of 
the  whole  sweep  of  universal  history,  no  other  role 
than  that  of  an  idle  spectator”  :  but  in  the  following 
proposition,  we  are  informed  that  the  same  doctrine 
necessitates  ‘  ‘  a  narrow,  tortuous,  oft-interrupted  out¬ 
line,  abounding  in  special  provisions,  trap-doors,  am¬ 
buscades,  checks,  hedges,  and  other  specifics,  such  as 
God  foresaw  would,  from  time  to  time,  become  neces¬ 
sary,  in  that  he  foresaw  that  here  and  there  his  creat¬ 
ures  would  choose  this  or  that  abnormal  course  of 
action.”  One  of  these  charges  must  be  false  ;  for 
surely  to  “interrupt”  anything,  to  have  “special 
provisions,”  to  use  “  trap-doors,  ambuscades,  checks, 
hedges,  and  other  specifics”  as  occasion  required  is 
not  to  be  “  an  idle  spectator”  ;  but 

(4)  Dr.  Rothe  is  mistaken  in  thinking  that  the 
Arminian  doctrine  legitimately  leads  to  the  conclu¬ 
sion  that  God  is  an  idle  spectator.  Arminians  believe 


258  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

that  of  all  possible  things  God  has  chosen  the  best. 
That  in  the  sphere  of  morals  he  has  adopted  such 
measures  as  will  ultimately  secure  the  highest  happi¬ 
ness  of  the  greatest  possible  number.  That  knowing 
by  his  unerring  foresight  what  his  creatures  will  freely 
do  and  become  in  time,  he  has  arranged  all  things 
accordingly :  hence,  in  a  certain  sense  which  is  emi¬ 
nently  praiseworthy,  God  does  interrupt,  or  change 
the  current  of  the  world’s  history — by  special  provis¬ 
ions,  or  checks :  not  that  his  plan  of  the  world’s 
government  is  changed,  but  that  these  changes  are 
strictly  in  accordance  with  the  foreseen  actions  of  men 
actually  occurring  in  time  :  in  the  elucidation  of  this 
thought  Dr.  Whedon  has  forcibly  said,  “  Tet  us,  as  a 
theodicic  illustration,  suppose  that  a  perfectly  good 
and  wise  prince,  absolute  in  authority,  rules  over  as 
many  tribes  and  nations  as  Persian  Xerxes  ;  the  large 
share  of  whom  are  hostile  to  each  other,  and  desper¬ 
ately  depraved.  His  plan  is  not  to  destroy,  nor  to 
interfere  with  their  personal  freedom,  but  so  to  arrange 
their  relations  to  each  other  as  that  he  may  make  them 
mutual  checks  upon  each  other’s  wickedness  :  that 
the  ambition  of  one  may  opportunely  chastise  the  out¬ 
rage  of  another  ;  that  those  wrongs  which  will  exist 
may  be  limited  and  overruled  ;  and  that  even  the 
crimes  which  they  will  commit  may  further  his  plans 
of  reformation,  gradual  perfectability,  and  highest 
sum  total  of  good.  If  it  is  seen  that  a  traitor  will 
assassinate,  be  the  victim  in  his  way  one  whose  death 
will  be  a  public  benefit  ;  if  brothers  fas  Joseph’s) 
will  envy  their  brother,  let  their  victim  thereby  so 
conduct  himself  as  that  he  shall  be  the  saviour  of  great 
nations.  If  a  proud  prince  will  wanton  in  his  pride, 


AND  MAN’S  MCKRAD  NATURE.  259 

so  nerve  him  up,  vitally  and  intellectively,  as  that  his 
wantonness  shall  spread  great  truths  through  the 
tribes  of  the  empire.  If  a  warlike  king  will  conquer 
let  the  nation  exposed  to  his  invasions  be  one  whose 

chastisement  will  be  a  lesson  to  the  world . If 

we  may  suppose  that  he  was  endued  with  a  more  than 
mortal  foresight ;  if  we  may  imagine  that  he  had  a 
plan,  partly  a  priori,  and  partly  based  on  foreseen 
deeds  of  his  subjects,  we  might  then  conceive  that  he 
could  take  all  the  passions,  crimes,  bold  enterprises, 
and  wild  movements  which  he  foresaw  men  would  ex¬ 
hibit,  into  his  account,  not  as  by  him  determined,  but  as 
cognized  parts  within  his  stupendous  scheme  of  good. 

‘  ‘  He  would  so  collocate  men  and  things  into  a  whole 
plan,  that  their  mutual  play  would  work  out  the  best 
results.  And  if  his  wisdom,  as  well  as  his  power,  is 
infinite,  and  his  existence  is  eternal,  then  the  entire 
scheme  could  be  comprehended  within  his  prescient 
glance  in  all  its  grandest  and  minutest  parts,  with  all 
their  causations,  freedoms,  and  dependencies,  and  so 
comprehended  that  his  predeterminations  touch  prop¬ 
erly  his  own  acts,  leaving  the  free  acts  to  the  self-orig¬ 
ination  of  free  agents.  And  this  may  be,  in  the  great 
whole,  in  spite  of  permitted  wrong,  the  best  possible 
system.  We  should  then,  in  vision,  behold  all  beings, 
however  free,  spontaneously,  uncompulsorily,  without 
command  or  decree,  moving  in  harmony  with  his  out¬ 
lines  of  events,  which  is  but  the  transcript  of  their 
free  actions,  and  by  their  very  iniquities  and  abomina¬ 
tions,  without  any  countenance  from  him  or  any 
excuse  to  themselves,  working  results  they  never 
dreamed,  but  which  are  in  his  plan.”  9 
<  < 


9 


Will.”  pp.  294,  296. 


260  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

^5)  Is  such  a  view  of  God’s  foreknowledge  possi¬ 
ble  ?  This  is  the  crucial  question  of  the  whole  sub¬ 
ject.  If  Dr.  Rothe  can  not  sustain  his  position  at  this 
point,  his  entire  argument  must  be  abandoned  :  he  can 
not  accept  the  prevalent  theory  because  “  If  God  in¬ 
fallibly  foreknows  with  apodictic  certainty,  all  the 
actions  of  men,  then  these  actions  must  be  absolutely 
certain  beforehand  :  but  (seeing  that,  as  being  par¬ 
tially  discretionary,  they  can  not  rest  absolutely  on 
inner  necessity)  they  could  be  absolutely  certain  be¬ 
forehand  only  through  a  divine  predetermination  ;  but 
this  would  not  only  preclude  the  free  self-determina¬ 
tion  of  man,  but  also  make  God  the  author  of  sin. 
That  which  in  God’s  knowledge  stands  objectively 
fixed,  can  not  be  for  man,  in  his  present  unperfected 
state,  a  matter  of  free  determination  ;  the  absolute 
foreknowing  on  the  part  of  God  of  the  actions  of  as 
yet  not  perfected  personal  creatures  is  unavoidably  a 
predetermining  of  the  same.”  1 

Analyzing  this  argument,  we  find  the  following 
points:  viz.,  (a)  If  future  actions  are  foreknown  with  ap¬ 
odictic  certainty,  they  are  absolutely  certain,  (b)  But 
as  they  are  partly  discretionary,  this  absolute  certainty 
can  not  rest  on  any  inner  necessity — such  as  exists  in  the 
morally  perfected — and  hence  this  certainty  must  result 
from  a  divine  predetermination,  (c)  This  in  turn  neces¬ 
sitates  the  conclusion  that  man  is  not  capable  of  self- 
determination,  and  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin. 

Consequently,  the  entire  argument  depends  on  the 
first  affirmation  that  “  if  future  actions  are  foreknown 
with  apodictic  certainty  they  are  absolutely  certain.” 
But  what  are  we  to  understand  by  the  words  “  ab- 


i  Page  149. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE). 


26l 


solutely  certain  ”  ?  Granting  that  Dr.  Rothe’s  meaning 
is  correct,  I  think  his  conclusions  will  necessarily  follow. 
Since  Edwards  wrote  his  celebrated  treatise  the  term 
“necessity”  has  been  abandoned  by  most,  if  not  all  Cal¬ 
vinists.  The  ‘  ‘  certainty  of  all  future  events  ’  ’  has  long 
been  the  motto  of  this  school  of  thinkers.  But  as  Ar- 
minians  have  readily  granted  the  pure  certainty  of  all 
free  actions,  not  a  little  of  the  Calvinistic  literature  is 
enveloped  in  a  blinding  ambiguity.  There  are  differ¬ 
ent  meanings  of  the  word  certain.  Says  Archbishop 
Whately,  “  Certain,  in  its  primary  sense,  is  applied 
(according  to  its  etymology)  to  the  state  of  a  person’s 
mind,  denoting  any  one’s  full  and  complete  convic¬ 
tion  ;  and  generally,  though  not  always,  implying 
that  there  is  sufficient  ground  for  such  conviction.  It 
was  thence  easily  transferred  metonymically  to  the 
truths  or  events  respecting  which  this  conviction  is 
rationally  entertained.” 2  With  the  great  body  of 
Arminians  I  readily  grant  that  the  foreseen  actions  of 
free  agents  are  absolutely  certain  in  the  sense  that  they 
will  occur  as  God  foresees  them  :  but  this  does  not 
prove  that  they  must  so  occur,  or  that  they  are  the 
result  of  a  divine  predetermination.  It  is,  however, 
with  this  idea  of  “  absolutely  certain  ”  that  the  argu¬ 
ment  of  Rothe  has  any  relevancy.  He  grants  that 
some  actions  may  be  absolutely  foreknown  without 
any  divine  predetermination.  Of  the  morally  per¬ 
fected,  we  are  told  their  actions  “can  be  absolutely 
foreseen  by  the  Infinite  Mind.”  Hence  the  mere  fore¬ 
knowing  of  an  event  does  not  affect  it  in  the  least. 
On  Rothe’s  supposition  some  free  actions  are  abso- 

2  “  For  a  full  discussion  of  this  term  see  Whedon’s  “Will.”  Also  Bled¬ 
soe’s”  Will.” 


262  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

lately  certain,  unconditionally  certain,  and  therefore, 
objectively  fixed  in  the  Infinite  Mind,  without  any 
predetermination.  Very  well.  If  some  free  actions 
can  be  foreknown,  then  so  far  as  the  divine  knowledge 
of  them  is  concerned,  all  may  be  thus  foreknown, 
without  any  predetermination.  That  is,  I  desire  to 
establish  the  point  that  foreknowing  is  not  the  same 
as,  nor  does  it  necessitate  predetermining.  Of  course 
Dr.  Rothe  denies  that  the  discretionarily  free  can  be 
foreknown  :  I  do  not  wish  to  beg  the  very  question  in 
dispute,  but  to  demonstrate  to  the  reader  that  Dr. 
Rothe  does  not  teach  the  doctrine  that  foreknowing  is 
identical  with  predetermining. 

Of  all  the  possible  volitions  of  free  agents,  there 
will  be  a  particular  one  put  forth  by  the  agent  at  any 
particular  moment.  This  would  be  true  if  God  did 
not  exist :  the  soul  is  of  a  certain  temperament :  is  liv¬ 
ing  in  definitely  ascertained  environments :  these  serve 
as  the  occasional  cause — not  the  efficient  cause — for 
volitional  action  :  the  soul  may  or  may  not  choose, 
according  to  the  highest  dictates  of  wisdom,  but  it  will 
certainly  choose  one  out  of  all  possible  ways.  Now 
why  can  not  the  Infinite  Mind  see  that  which  will 
actually  be  ?  Because,  says  Dr.  Rothe,  if  the  volition 
is  infallibly  foreknown,  it  must  be  absolutely  certain  : 
and  if  absolutely  certain  in  the  discretionarily  free,  it 
is  because  of  the  divine  predetermination.  Why  ? 
Because  a  thing  can  not  be  foreknown  unless  prede¬ 
termined  ?  No,  by  no  means,  for  as  we  have  seen  Dr. 
Rothe  acknowledges  that  some  free  actions  are  fore¬ 
known.  The  reason  is  simply  this  :  that  if  the  actions 
of  all  men  are  absolutely  foreknown,  they  are  abso¬ 
lutely  certain  ;  and  hence,  according  to  Dr.  Rothe,  the 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE-  263 

certainty  is  the  result  of  a  divine  predetermination. 
This,  however,  by  no  means  follows  :  for  a  thing  may 
be  absolutely  certain  and  yet  be  entirely  free,  i.  <?.,  the 
foreseen  actions  of  the  morally  perfected.  True,  Dr. 
Rothe  affirms  that  these  occur  by  an  ‘  ‘  inner  necessity,  ’  ’ 
a  universal  law  of  right  by  which  God  can  foresee 
their  actions.  But  I  ask  what  is  meant  by  this  ‘  ‘  inner 
necessity  ”  ?  Is  it  such  a  necessity  that  deprives  the 
morally  perfected  from  doing  otherwise  ?  I  can  not  be¬ 
lieve  that  Dr.  Rothe  ever  thus  regarded  it.  In  that 
case  they  would  cease  to  be  free,  and  hence,  responsible 
agents.  This  absolute  certainty,  then,  which  is  pred¬ 
icated  of  the  actions  of  the  morally  perfected,  is  a  will 
be,  and  not  a  must  be.  This  is  all  the  absolute  cer¬ 
tainty  there  is  concerning  the  foreseen  actions  of  all 
men.  They  are  absolutely  certain  in  the  sense  that 
they  will  infallibly  occur  as  they  have  been  foreseen, 
not  because  they  must  come  in  that  way,  nor  because 
of  any  predetermination  ;  but  because  the  Infinite 
Mind  unerringly  sees  things  as  they  are.  Hence,  I 
am  led  to  think  Dr.  Rothe  much  mistaken  in  affirming 
that  the  declaration  God  sees  free  actions  as  free  is  a 
makeshift.  Surely  it  is  not  so  intended  by  those  who 
employ  it  :  to  them  it  simply  expresses  what  they  re¬ 
gard  as  eternal  truth.  We  might  imagine  a  student 
of  theology  examining  the  evidence  of  God’s  exist¬ 
ence.  He  maybe  told  by  some  that  God’s  eternal  ex¬ 
istence  can  not  be  proved,  because  it  is  a  matter  of 
intuition  :  that  the  attempt  to  prove  it,  is  just  so  far  a 
work  of  supererogation,  involving  a  fundamental  in¬ 
consistency.  In  his  ignorance  of  the  peculiar  consti¬ 
tution  of  his  friend’s  mind,  in  his  zeal  for  proving  all 
things,  that  he  may  hold  fast  to  that  which  is  good, 


264  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

he  might  say,  This  is  a  makeshift.  So  far  from  solv¬ 
ing  any  difficulty,  the  matter  is  made  worse  because  I 
am  told  the  subject  is  beyond  logical  demonstration. 
But  this  is  unjust  to  the  intuitional  idea  of  God.  As 
used  by  its  advocates  it  is  infinitely  removed  from  any 
subterfuge  or  makeshift.  In  like  manner,  when  the 
Arminian  says  that  the  Infinite  Mind  sees  the  future 
free  actions  of  men  as  free,  he  simply  affirms  that 
which  to  him  must  be  true. 

To  say  that  it  can  not  be  true  because  we  can  not 
see  how  God  can  thus  foreknow,  is  to  substitute 
ignorance  for  argument.  Dr.  Rothe  attempts  to  dem¬ 
onstrate  that  it  can  not  be,  but  it  is  by  confounding  a 
will  be  with  a  must  be. 

(6)  Dr.  Rothe  is  unequivocally  condemned  by 
Scripture.  The  following  passages  should  be  carefully 
considered.  “  And  I  am  sure  that  the  King  of  Egypt 
will  not  let  you  go,  no  not  by  a  mighty  hand  ” 
(Exodus  iii.  19).  “And  if  thou  say  in  thine  heart, 
How  shall  we  know  the  word  which  the  Lord  hath  not 
spoken  ?  When  a  prophet  speaketh  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  if  the  thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass,  that  is 
the  thing  which  the  Lord  hath  not  spoken,  but  the 
prophet  hath  spoken  it  presumptuously  :  thou  shalt 
not  be  afraid  of  him  ”  (Deut.  xviii.  21,  22 ).  “Now, 
therefore,  write  ye  this  song  for  you,  and  teach  it  to 
the  children  of  Israel  ;  put  it  in  their  mouths,  that 
this  song  may  be  a  witness  for  me  against  the  children 
of  Israel.  For  when  I  shall  have  brought  them  into  the 
land  which  I  sware  unto  their  fathers,  that  floweth 
with  milk  and  honey  ;  and  they  shall  have  eaten  and 
filled  themselves,  and  waxen  fat  ;  then  will  they  turn 
unto  other  gods  and  serve  them,  and  provoke  me  and 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  265 

break  my  covenant.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when 
many  evils  and  troubles  are  befallen  them,  that  this 
song  shall  testify  against  them  as  a  witness,  for  it  shall 
not  be  forgotten  out  of  the  mouths  of  their  seed  ;  for  I 
know  their  imagination  which  they  go  about,  even 
now,  before  I  have  brought  them  into  the  land  which 
I  sware  ”  (Deut.  xxxi.  19-21).  “Thus  saith  the 
Lord  God,  It  shall  come  to  pass,  that  at  the  same  time 
shall  things  come  unto  thy  mind,  and  thou  shalt  think 
an  evil  thought’’  (Kzek.  xxxviii.  10).  “  I  have  de¬ 

clared  the  former  things  from  the  beginning  ;  and  they 
went  forth  out  of  my  mouth,  and  I  shewed  them.  I 
did  them  suddenly  ;  and  they  came  to  pass.  Because 
I  knew  that  thou  art  obstinate,  and  thy  neck  is  an  iron 
sinew,  and  thy  brow  brass ;  I  have  even  from  the 
beginning  declared  it  unto  thee  ;  before  it  came  to 
pass  I  shewed  it  thee  ;  lest  thou  shouldest  say  mine 
idol  hath  done  them  ;  and  my  graven  image,  and  my 
molten  image  hath  commanded  them  ’  ’  (Isa.xlviii.  3-5). 
“  Behold,  the  former  things  are  come  to  pass,  and  new 
things  do  I  declare  ;  before  they  spring  forth  I  tell  you 
of  them”  (Isa.  xlii.  9).  “Remember  the  former 
things  of  old  :  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else  ; 
I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  like  me.  Declaring  the 
end  from  the  beginning,  and  from  ancient  times  the 
things  that  are  not  yet  done,  saying,  My  counsel  shall 
stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my  pleasure  ”  (Isa.  xlvi.  9,  10). 

‘  ‘  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  seventy  years  are 
accomplished,  that  I  will  punish  the  King  of  Babylon, 
and  that  nation,  saith  the  Lord,  for  their  iniquity,  and 
the  land  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  will  make  it  perpet¬ 
ual  desolations  ”  (Jer.  xxv.  12).  “  In  the  first  yeal 

of  Darius,  the  son  of  Ahasuerus,  of  the  seed  of  the 


266  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

Medes,  which  was  made  King  over  the  realm  of  the 
Chaldeans  ;  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  I  Daniel  un¬ 
derstood  by  books  the  number  of  the  years,  whereof 
the  word  of  the  Cord  came  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet, 
that  he  would  accomplish  seventy  years  in  the 
desolations  of  Jerusalem”  (Dan.  ix.  i,  2).  “And, 
behold,  there  came  a  man  of  God  out  of  Judah 
by  the  word  of  the  Lord  unto  Bethel  ;  and  Jero¬ 
boam  stood  by  the  altar  to  burn  incense.  And  he 
cried  against  the  altar  in  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and 
said,  O  altar,  thus  saith  the  Lord  ;  Behold  a  child 
shall  be  born  unto  the  house  of  David,  Josiah  by 
name  ;  and  upon  thee  shall  he  offer  the  priests  of  the 
high  places  that  burn  incense  upon  thee,  and  men’s 
bones  shall  be  burnt  upon  thee  ”  (1.  Kings  xiii. 
1,  2).  This  should  be  read  in  connection  with  the 
following,  which  occurred  over  three  hundred  years 
after  its  prediction.  “  And  as  Josiah  turned  himself, 
he  spied  the  sepulchres  that  were  there  in  the  mount, 
and  sent,  and  took  the  bones  out  of  the  sepulchres, 
and  burned  them  upon  the  altar,  and  polluted  it,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  word  of  the  Lord,  which  the  man  of 
God  proclaimed,  who  proclaimed  these  words  ”  (11. 
Kings,  xxiii.  16).  Many  more  passages  might  be 
adduced.  The  Bible  is  permeated  with  the  spirit  of 
prophecy. 

Generously  allowing  full  scope  for  the  thought  of 
Professor  Lacroix  that  in  all  the  prophecies  of  the 
Bible  there  is  some  degree  of  indefiniteness  ;  and  fairly 
granting  this  may  plausibly  account  for  some  prophe¬ 
cies,  yet  it  is  impossible  to  bring  all  of  the  many  pro¬ 
phetic  utterances  of  the  Scriptures  within  the  range  of 
this  theory.  Lor,  as  Dr.  Keith  has  well  declared, 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  267 

“  Many  of  the  prophecies  are  as  explicit  and  direct  as 
it  is  possible  that  they  could  have  been.” 

After  elucidating  Dr.  Rothe’s  view  of  prophecy, 
Professor  Lacroix  says,  “But  another  hypothesis  will 
be  more  satisfactory  to  many.  It  is  this.  God  not 
only  surveys  through  the  pregnant  actualities  of  the 
present,  the  general  scope  of  the  future,  but  he  also, 
as  occasion  requires,  makes  use  of  individuals — kings, 
military  chieftains,  etc., — as  passive  (and  in  so  far, 
not  morally  acting)  instruments  of  his  purposes. 
Compare  the  cases  of  Pharaoh,  Balaam,  Jonah,  etc. 
That  is,  he  providentially  brings  so  many  and  such 
strong  motives  to  bear  upon  them,  that  their  actions 
fall,  so  to  speak,  for  the  time  being,  under  the  law  of 
cause  and  effect  ;  so  that  he  can  thus  at  any  time,  in 
the  fulfilling  of  a  specific  purpose,  bring  about  a  speci¬ 
fic  event,  or  precipitate  a  general  crisis.  Thus  the 
possibility  of  definite  prophecies  is  fully  given,  and 
the  field  yet  left  entirely  free  for  the  doctrine  of  the 
non-foreknowledge  of  the  future  volitions  of  imperfect 
free  creatures.”  4 

This  is  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  McCabe  as  promulgated 
in  his  first  work,  “  The  Foreknowledge  of  God.”  I 
gladly  testify  to  Dr.  McCabe’s  ability  and  reverent 
spirit.  If  his  position  is  not  generally  accepted,  it  will 
be  the  fault  of  the  theory  and  not  of  its  defender.  He 
divides  the  kingdoms  of  God  into  Nature,  Providence, 
Grace  and  Glory.  The  last-named  kingdom  refers  to 
the  life  of  the  redeemed  in  heaven,  and  is  therefore 
ruled  out  of  the  present  discussion.  Moral  freedom 
and  responsibility  are  conceived  as  belonging  only  to 
the  kingdom  of  grace.  “The  principle,  therefore, 


4  “  Bib.  Sacra.”  1875,  p.  160. 


ft 


268  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

that  controls  in  the  kingdom  of  grace  is  radically 
different  from  that  which  obtains  in  the  kingdoms  ol 
nature,  providence  and  glory.  .  .  .  When  we  ascend 
to  the  high  realms  of  free  grace  and  human  freedom, 
and  accountability  for  eternal  destinies,  a  new  factor  is 
forced  upon  us,  and  will  not  disappear  from  our  vision, 
however  incoherent  our  reasonings  and  blinding  our 
prejudices.”  In  prophecy  God  “overrides  the  law  of 
liberty,  just  as  he  overrides  the  law  of  material  forces 
in  miracles.”  “All  he  would  need  to  do,  even  in  an 
extreme  case,  would  be  to  bring  controlling  influences 
to  bear  upon  his  (man’s)  sensibilities,  to  put  his  will 
under  the  law  of  cause  and  effect,  to  make  his  choices 
certain,  in  order  to  foreknow  with  entire  accuracy  the 
whole  process  and  final  result.”5  As  there  are  no 
prophecies  concerning  the  betrayal  of  the  Saviour  by 
Judas,  as  the  Lord  Jesus  did  not  know  that  this  dis¬ 
ciple  “  would  certainly  develop  into  the  character  and 
reach  the  ignominious  end  that  he  finally  did,”  the 
betrayer  was  morally  responsible  and  guilty.  “But 
while  we  maintain  that  it  is  impossible  for  Omniscience 
to  foresee  with  definite  and  absolute  certainty  the 
choices  of  free  agents  when  they  act  under  the  law  of 
liberty,  we  nevertheless  believe  that  God  can  in  mul¬ 
titudes  of  cases,  perhaps  in  most,  judge  very  accurately 
as  to  what  is  most  likely  to  take  lji  ice,  in  given  con¬ 
templated  circumstances.”  6 

Dr.  McCabe’s  fundamental  positions  are  now  be¬ 
fore  the  reader.  Let  us  notice  some  of  their  necessary 
conclusions.  (1)  Like  Dr.  Rothe’s  theory,  Dr. 
McCabe’s  postulate  involves  self-contradictions.  In 


s  Pages  61,  62,  30,  42,  43. 
G  Pages  100,  153. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


269 


Chaps,  xxiv. — xxvni.  the  supposed  inconsistencies  of 
God’s  absolute  foreknowledge  of  future  free  actions  are 
forcibly  stated.  The  “  hypothesis  that  foresees  all  the 
actions  of  free  agents  makes  his  affirmations,  dealings, 
promises  and  threatenings  appear  most  inconsistent.” 
“  No  consideration  whatever  could  justify  infinite 
goodness  in  creating  a  soul  that  God  foreknew  would 
be  wretched  and  suffer  forever.”  “  Foreknowledge 
would  prevent  proper  states  of  feeling  in  the  Infinite 
Mind.”  It  makes,  “Tove,  hate,  approval,  disapproval 
admiration,  contempt,  and  every  variety  of  feeling, 
corresponding  to  every  successive  variety  of  my  char¬ 
acter  from  birth  to  death,  exist  in  him  at  the  same 
instant.”  There  are  many  more  objections  against 
the  absolute  prescience  of  God,  but  I  have  quoted 
enough  to  show  their  general  character.  A  little 
reflection  will  demonstrate  their  serious  conflict  with 
Dr.  McCabe’s  admission  that  “  God  can  in  multitudes 
of  cases,  perhaps  in  most,  judge  very  accurately  as  to 
what  is  most  likely  to  take  place  in  given  contem¬ 
plated  circumstances.”  Far  be  it  from  me  to  raise  a 
false  issue.  I  do  not  wish  to  misinterpret  Dr.  McCabe 
nor  to  press  his  words  beyond  their  legitimate  mean¬ 
ing.  My  criticism  is  this.  If  the  above  objections 
are  valid  against  absolute  foreknowledge,  they  must 
also  be  legitimate  against  any  foreknowledge.  The 
issue  is  not  of  mode,  but  of  the  fact  that  God  does  or 
does  not  perfectly  or  partially  know  future  free  actions. 
If  God  can  judge  “  very  accurately  ”  in  most  cases,  he 
can  not  be  wholly  ignorant  of  what  his  creatures  will 
freely  do,  and  therefore,  he  must  have  some  knowl¬ 
edge  of  their  final  destiny.  So  far  as  this  is  true, 
Dr.  McCabe  does  not  escape  his  own  objections.  (2) 


270  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

This  is  equally  true  of  his  postulate  that  freedom  and 
responsibility  belong  only  to  the  kingdom  of  grace. 
He  earnestly  contends  against  fatalism.  Affirms  “  that 
the  dread  system  of  necessity  is  based  upon  the 
assumption  of  universal  prescience.”  Chapter  x.  is 
devoted  to  the  elucidation  of  this  proposition  :  he 
declares  “No  one  can  have  a  distinct  and  complete 
idea  of  freedom  who  embraces  fatalism.” 

But  notwithstanding  these  bold  assertions,  Dr. 
McCabe’s  entire  work  is  based  on  this  “necessity.” 
His  idea  of  prophecy  presupposes  that  the  human 
will  is  “brought  under  the  law  of  cause  and  effect”; 
hence,  God  can  use  man  “as  an  instrument  in  his 
hands.  He  can  make  use  of  him  as  easily  as  he  can 
make  use  of  fire,  water,  light,  air,  sun,  moon,  or  stars. 
Hence,  if  God  desired  a  certain  providential  work  to 
be  accomplished  five  hundred  years  hence,  he  could 
predict  it  with  absolute  certainty.  All  that  would  be 
necessary  would  be  to  influence  the  will  of  some  one 
then  living  with  the  requisite  intensity  to  secure  a 
consenting  volition,  or,  as  in  many  cases,  an  uncon¬ 
scious  instrument.  The  volitions  of  such  an  agent 
would  be  necessary  and  foreseen,  because  forefixed.”  7 
As  the  spirit  of  prophecy  permeates  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  as  it  forms  an  important  element  in  the  Gospels 
and  Epistles  it  must  be  confessed  that  according  to 
this  theory  fatalism  reigns  supreme  over  no  inconsid¬ 
erable  portion  of  human  activities.  Dr.  McCabe  seeks 
to  prove  human  freedom.  How  is  it  accomplished  ? 
By  affirming  that  in  countless  instances  man  is  not 
free,  that  his  will  is  brought  under  the  law  of  cause 
and  effect.  If  this  is  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the 


7  Pages  39,  40. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


271 


problem,  I  certainly  admire  the  ease  with  which  it  is 
demonstrated.  But  (3)  Dr.  McCabe’s  position  logic¬ 
ally  necessitates  the  conclusion  that  God  is  the  author 
of  sin.  Beyond  all  controversy  some  one  must  be 
responsible  for  the  official  acts  of  Pharaoh,  Cyrus  and 
other  prominent  characters  of  history.  If  the  actors 
are  not  responsible  because  of  the  strong  motives 
brought  before  and  upon  them,  then  we  must  look  to 
Him  who  is  said  to  be  the  author  of  these  influences. 
In  this  case  we  shall  have  the  perplexing  problem 
solved  with  the  following  results  :  Some  men  are  only 
partially  free  :  so  far  forth  as  their  actions  follow  the 
law  of  cause  and  effect,  God  is  the  author.  It  avails 
nothing  to  say  that  God  secures  the  results  through 
Satanic  or  human  agencies.  Not  only  is  the  original 
impulse  from  God,  but  Dr.  McCabe  affirms  that  the 
act  or  event  is  according  to  the  divine  purpose.  This 
is  clearly  illustrated  by  the  history  of  Pharaoh.  Dr. 
McCabe  says  God  “could  say  to  Moses,  ‘I  am  sure 
the  King  of  Bg}rpt  will  not  let  you  go.’  For  as  Pha¬ 
raoh  had  sinned  away  his  day  of  grace,  God  could 
easily  cause  his  will  to  come  under  the  law  of  cause 
and  effect,  by  permitting  Satan  and  evil  spirits  to 
come  in  upon  him  ‘  like  a  flood,’  as  a  prophet  expresses 
it.”  Dr.  McCabe  seems  to  forget  the  real  issue  in  this 
ancient  controversy.  It  is  not  whether  Pharaoh  had 
or  had  not  sinned  away  his  day  of  grace.  It  is 
whether  the  king  will  or  will  not  let  the  people  go. 
The  different  plagues  were  brought  upon  the  stubborn 
king  because  he  would  not  obey  the  voice  of  the  great 
I  Am.  But  if  Dr.  McCabe  is  right,  we  must  conclude 
that  God  did  not  wish  Pharaoh  to  obey — did  not  really 
mean  what  he  said — and  then  punished  the  king  for 


272  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

carrying  out  the  divine  intention.  (4)  Dr.  McCabe’s 
hypothesis  concerning  Peter’s  denial,  is  untenable. 
Speaking  of  the  Saviour’s  knowledge  of  Peter  and  of 
the  denial,  he  says,  “  He  saw  it  necessary  to  allow  the 
will  of  Peter  to  be  so  tempted  by  demoniacal  spirits 
that  he  could  not  withstand  their  assaults.  With  the 
best  and  most  benign  ends  in  view,  he  suffered  him 
then  to  be  ‘  tempted  above  that  he  was  able  to  bear.  ’ 
Christ  could  foreknow  and  foretell  the  act  of  denial, 
because  he  knew  that  Peter’s  will  would  be  so  over¬ 
borne  by  temptational  influences  that  it  would  move 
as  it  was  moved  upon,  and  thus  act,  though  consent- 
ingly,  under  unconscious  constraint.”  Then  we  are 
to  understand  that  Peter  could  not  help  denying  his 
Lord.  Certainly,  for  has  not  Dr.  McCabe  distinctly 
affirmed  that  the  disciple  could  not  withstand  the 
temptation  of  the  evil  spirits  ?  But  wishing  to  put 
this  issue  beyond  all  chance  of  misunderstanding,  I 
quote  the  following  :  “  For,  if  one  is  not  to  blame  for 
not  rising  up  when  a  mountain  is  upon  him,  neither 
can  he  be  called  to  account  for  not  achieving  a  moral 
character  when  temptational  influences  out  of  all  due 
proportion  to  his  resources  of  volitional  energy  were 
allowed  to  overpower  him.”  “The  moment  divine 
or  diabolical  influences  are  brought  to  bear  on  an  in¬ 
dividual  will,  which  are  out  of  exact  proportion  to  its 
strength  of  resistance,  the  will  loses  its  freedom  and 
comes  under  the  power  of  the  same  law  that  rules 
material  forces.”  “  Under  the  influence  of  extraneous 
power  the  human  will  may  and  does  act ;  but  the  act, 
not  being  that  of  a  free  agent,  can  not  be  held  culpa¬ 
ble,  since,  as  we  have  before  remarked,  it  is  only  when 
the  will  acts  under  the  law  of  liberty,  possessing  its 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


273 


power  of  contrary  choice,  that  its  acts  can  have  a 
moral  character,  or  that  its  possessor  can  act  as  an  ac¬ 
countable  being.”  This  is  sufficiently  strong  and 
explicit.  But  how  does  it  stand  the  test  of  Scripture? 
“Weighed  in  the  balance  and  found  wanting”  must 
be  the  verdict  the  moment  we  see  the  Master’s  sad 
face  turned  toward  Peter  as  they  sat  by  the  fire  in  the 
house  of  the  high  priest.  “Fundamentally  false” 
must  be  the  answer,  as  we  see  Peter  leaving  the  place 
and  know  of  his  bitter  weeping.  The  facts  of  Peter’s 
restoration  are  meaningless  if  they  do  not  signify  that 
his  denials  and  profanity  were  sinful,  and  therefore 
preventable.  This  is  admitted  by  Dr.  McCabe  when 
he  seeks  to  palliate  Peter’s  sin.  “But  that  act  of 
denial,  though  objectively  so  heinous,  was  subject¬ 
ively  no  more  sinful  than  the  sinful  tempers,  purposes, 
and  affinities  which  Jesus  then  saw  struggling  for 
victory  in  the  regenerated,  but  yet  unsanctified,  soul 
of  Peter.  Once  more  does  Dr.  McCabe  miss  the  real 
issue.  I  do  not  propose,  nor  is  it  our  province,  to  tell 
the  exact  degree  of  Peter’s  sin.  Knough  for  me  to 
know  that  it  was  very  sinful,  contrary  to  the  desire 
of  the  Master,  and  should  have  been  prevented. 
Many  of  the  texts  adduced  by  Dr.  McCabe  as  illus¬ 
trating  Peter’s  sinless  fall — 1.  Kings  xxii.  20-22; 
Judges  ix.  23  ;  1.  Sam.  xvi.  14 — are  easily  explained 
without  resorting  to  this  more  than  questionable 
method.  8 

(5.)  Dr.  McCabe’s  doctrine  of  human  liberty  is 
fallacious  and  pernicious.  His  concessions  to  neces¬ 
sitarians  are  unfortunate.  If  they  were  generally 
adopted  the  best  interests  of  society  would  be  seriously 


8  See  Part  II.,  Ch.  IV.,  Sec.  6 


274  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

imperiled.  The  vast  majority  of  men  think,  feel, 
and  act  as  if  they  were  free  agents  and  therefore 
responsible  :  but  according  to  the  theory  now  under 
consideration  there  are  innumerable  instances  where 
their  liberty  is  suppressed  and  they  become  irrespon¬ 
sible.  kike  Peter,  they  have  no  idea  of  the  divine 
intention  :  they  commit  that  which  they  think  is  sinful, 
feel  guilty  for  it  and  often  repent  with  bitter  tears  ; 
but  it  is  a  psychological  delusion  ;  as  kord  Karnes  has 
said,  “Though  man  in  truth  is  a  necessary,  agent,  yet 
this  being  concealed  from  him,  he  acts  with  the  con¬ 
viction  of  being  a  free  agent.”  Bailey  has  tersely  put 
it  as  follows  : 

“  Free  will  is  but  necessity  in  play, 

The  clattering  of  the  golden  reins  which  guide 
The  thunder-footed  coursers  of  the  sun  ; 

And  thus  with  man, 

To  God  he  is  but  working  out  his  will.” 

The  fact  is  that  man’s  moral  nature  fundamentally 
condemns  Dr.  McCabe’s  hypothesis.  If  our  moral 
convictions  demand  a  belief  in  human  freedom,  we  are 
free,  or  else  God  has  made  us  to  believe  a  lie. 

Moreover,  if  God  thus  uses  his  creatures  for  the 
performance  of  that  which  seems  but  is  not  sinful,  by 
what  methods  shall  human  justice  be  secured?  So 
far  as  possible  human  laws  should  reflect  the  divine 
will :  If  a  wretch  like  President  Garfield’s  assassin  is 
overpowered  by  temptational  influences,  thereby  be¬ 
coming  a  necessary  agent  in  the  hands  of  his  Creator, 
upon  what  grounds  shall  he  be  tried  and  executed? 
By  what  means  are  we  to  know  that  he  was  not  a 
necessitated  agent  ?  In  future  crimes  how  shall  we 
discriminate  between  the  heavenly  and  earthly  con¬ 
stituted  perpetrators  ? 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE. 


275 


Dr.  McCabe’s  theory  that  God  tempts— through 
Satanic  influences — is  antagonistic  to  the  teaching  of 
Jas.  i.  13.  He  also  misinterprets  1.  Cor.  x.  13,  which 
declares  the  universal  procedure  of  the  Father  of 
mercies  that  no  one  will  be  tempted  above  that  which 
he  is  able  to  bear.  As  Dr.  U.  P. .  Hickok  has  truly 
said,  “  Not  only  has  the  man  the  native  powers  of  free 
agency  whereby  the  spirit  may  control  the  sense  and 
hold  every  appetite  and  passion  in  subjection  to  rea¬ 
son,  however  strongly  these  may  be  influenced  by 
temptation,  but,  beyond  this,  special  spiritual  help  is 
graciously  offered  to  every  tempted  soul.”  9 

Dr.  McCabe’s  arguments  to  show  that  Judas  was 
not  the  subject  of  prophecy  are  quite  plausible.  I 
question  his  interpretation  of  John  vi.  64,  and  Acts 
i.  16.  Zechariah  xi.  12,13  must  have  some  meaning 
It  is  universally  conceded  that  this  prophet  uttered 
many  predictions  of  Christ  and  his  kingdom.  Until 
a  better  interpretation  can  be  obtained  the  vast  major¬ 
ity  of  biblical  scholars  will  refer  this  passage  to  Judas. 
But  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  I  am  willing  to  grant 
all  that  Dr.  McCabe  claims  for  the  betrayer.  It  is 
also  freely  admitted  that  the  doctrine  of  divine  fore¬ 
knowledge  is  not  without  its  difficulties.  But  Dr. 
McCabe  greatly  exaggerates  their  number  and  cogency. 
The  proposition  that  a  “  Belief  in  divine  foreknowl¬ 
edge  depresses  the  energies  of  the  soul,”  is  contra¬ 
dicted  by  the  remarkable  growth  of  that  body  of 
Christians  of  which  Dr.  McCabe  is  an  honored  mem¬ 
ber.  That  it  depresses  the  energies  of  some  natures  is 
because  they  insist  that  foreknowledge  is  equivalent  to 

9“  Bib.  Sacra.”  1873,  p.  666.  “  Temptation  No  Excuse  for  Transgres¬ 

sion.” 


2j6  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

foreordination.  But  the  vast  majority  of  Arminians 
are  of  a  different  opinion,  whose  faith  is  demonstrated 
by  their  abundant  works. 

In  concluding  Chapter  xiv. — “  Foreknowledge  In¬ 
comprehensible  ’ ’ — Dr.  McCabe  says,  “Until  the 
advocates  of  universal  prescience  can  present  some¬ 
thing  besides  dogmatic  assertion  in  its  support,  the 
writer  must  remain  standing  respectfully  before  them 
in  the  attitude  of  a  perplexed  but  devout  questioner.” 
Very  well.  But  why  so  much  argument  to  silence 
mere  dogmatism  ?  The  truth  is,  when  Dr.  McCabe 
shall  have  formulated  a  doctrine  of  nescience  self-con¬ 
sistent  and  agreeing  with  the  fundamental  postulates 
of  religion  his  opponents  will  consider  the  advisability 
of  a  capitulation. 

In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to  notice  the  able 
article  on  “  Recent  Theories  of  the  Divine  Foreknowl¬ 
edge,”  by  Rev.  W.  H.  Cobb,  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  Oct.,  1883. 
The  views  of  Rothe,  McCabe,  Dorner,  and  Whedon 
are  analyzed  and  classified.  His  main  position  will 
be  considered  in  subsequent  pages.  I11  concluding 
this  section  I  will  briefly  note  our  agreements  and 
differences.  ( 1 )  We  agree  in  the  doctrine  of  divine 
foresight  as  taught  by  the  Scriptures.  Dr.  Cobb  says, 
“But  the  Bible  also  opposes  any  hesitancy  as  to 
the  divine  foresight,  of  freedom  by  teaching,  the  full 
omniscience  and  prescience  of  God.”  (2)  We  agree  in 
rejecting  all  those  theories  which  deny  the  foreknowl¬ 
edge  of  God.  He  says,  “  The  result  of  our  Scriptural 
examination  is  to  negative  decidedly  the  theories  of 
Rothe,  Dorner  and  McCabe.”  (3)  We  differ  as  to  the 
relation  of  God’s  foreknowledge  to  his  will.  I  reject, 
while  Dr.  Cobb  accepts,  with  one  modification,  the 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE}. 


277 


“traditional  ”  or  Calvinistic  doctrine  that  foreknowl¬ 
edge  is  subsequent  to  the  decree.  His  special  argu¬ 
ments  for  this  position  will  be  examined  as  we 
advance. 


SECTION  11. 

Calvinism  Limits  God's  Omniscience. 

The  previous  section  has  disclosed  two  interesting 
facts  concerning  the  omniscience  of  God  and  human 
freedom.  The  great  majority  of  Arminians  agree 
with  the  Calvinists  in  earnestly  advocating  the  divine 
foreknowledge.  On  the  other  hand  all  Arminians 
agree  with  Dr.  Rothe  that  human  freedom — self-de¬ 
termination  —  can  not  be  held  if  human  actions 
are  predetermined  by  the  divine  Will.  Thus  the 
reader  will  perceive  that  the  Arminian  holds  a  middle 
position  in  the  great  contest  for  a  right  conception  of 
the  Divine  Government.  If  he  believes  in  the  freedom 
of  the  will,  he  also  believes  in,  and  heartily  accepts 
Paul’s  affirmation  that  “  All  Scripture  is  given  by  in¬ 
spiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for 
reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteous¬ 
ness’’  (11.  Tim.  iii.  16).  When  he  finds  some  revealed 
truths  which  are  hard  to  be  understood,  he  has  no 
desire  to  invent  a  theory  which  shall  unequivocally 
conflict  with  the  plain  teachings  of  the  Word.  He 
does  not  wish  a  God  who  can  be  comprehended.  If 
he  interprets  the  Bible  so  as  not  to  make  it  self-contra¬ 
dictory,  nor  teach  doctrines  which  are  fundamentally 
condemned  by  the  inner  revelation  written  on  the 
fleshly  table  of  the  heart,  he  is  willing  to  see  some 
things  “  through  a  glass,  darkly,’’  believing  that  in 


278  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

the  glorious  future  he  shall  know  even  as  also  he  is 
known. 

The  Calvinist  has  always  earnestly  contended  for 
the  Divine  Omnipotence.  When  the  Arminian,  ac¬ 
cepting  the  plain  teachings  of  Scripture,  declares  that 
the  omnipotence  of  God  is  limited  by  free  will,  the 
Calvinist  is  ever  ready  to  exclaim,  This  is  Pelagian. 
It  is,  therefore,  quite  refreshing  to  see  this  same  Cal¬ 
vinist  place  a  limitation  on  the  omniscience  of  God. 
Which  is  the  more  important,  power  or  knowledge  ? 

The  reader  will  please  remember  that  in  the  pre¬ 
vious  chapter  we  were  distinctly  told  that  God  could 
not  know  the  future  actions  of  men  unless  he  pre¬ 
viously  determined  to  accomplish  or  permit  them,  that 
according  to  Calvin,  God  knew  Adam’s  fall,  “  because 
he  had  ordained  it  so  by  his  own  decree.”  Dr.  Em¬ 
mons  declares  that  the  foreknowledge  of  God  must  be 
founded  upon  his  decree,  for  if  it  is  not,  “it  has  no 
foundation  :  it  is  an  effect  without  a  cause.” 

Is  this  logically  true  ?  I  think  not,  and  for  the 
following  reasons  :  ( 1)  It  contradicts  all  human  con¬ 

ceptions.  Humanly  speaking,  existence  must  precede 
action.  This  is  universally  true.  We  can  not  im¬ 
agine  a  creature  or  thing  as  acting,  without  presup¬ 
posing  the  existence  of  that  creature  or  thing.  It  is 
equally  true  on  the  supposition  that  action  begins  the 
very  instant  of  existence  :  for  the  existence  is,  and 
must  be  the  foundation  for  the  action.  So  far  forth 
this  must  be  true  of  God.  The  mind  can  not  con¬ 
ceive  any  attribute  of  God  without  presupposing  the 
conception  of  existence.  If  I  affirm  the  divine  Power 
or  Love,  I  first  assume  the  existence  of  him  who  dis¬ 
plays  such  wondrous  strength  and  affection.  This 


AND  MAN’S  MORAIv  NATURE. 


279 


equally  applies  to  the  subj ect  under  consideration .  T he 
foreknowledge  of  God  is  his  knowledge  of  things  which 
will  take  place  in  time.  Knowledge  is  of  the  intellect, 
while  determination  is  of  the  will.  Hence,  as  all 
action  necessarily  presupposes  existence,  so  volition 
presupposes  knowledge  ;  otherwise  the  determination 
is  the  result  of  ignorance.  To  say  this  is  true  of  man 
but  not  of  God,  is  mere  assumption.  Inasmuch  as  we 
are  the  offspring  of  God,  the  probabilities  are  decidedly 
in  favor  of  this  position.  To  affirm  that  God’s 
thoughts  and  determinations  are  eternal,  and  there¬ 
fore  the  Arminian’s  position  can  not  be  maintained, 
is  of  no  effect.  Granting  this  to  be  true,  yet  the  eter¬ 
nity  of  God’s  thoughts  and  volitions  does  not  preclude 
the  fundamental  conception  and  necessary  assumption 
of  his  existence,  and  hence  the  same  law  of  logical 
necessity  will  compel  us  to  conceive  of  his  knowledge 
prior  to,  and  as  the  basis  of  his  determination.  More¬ 
over,  if  this  last  claim  of  the  Calvinist  be  true,  if 
God’s  thoughts  and  volitions  are  from  eternity,  why 
should  he  so  dogmatically  assert  the  priority  of  the 
Divine  Volition  ? 

(2)  The  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  God’s  foreknowl¬ 
edge  is  no  foreknowledge.  It  is  simply  foreordination. 
If  God  can  not  foreknow  the  future  free  actions  of  men, 
then  so  far  forth  there  is  no  such  thing  as  divine  fore¬ 
knowledge.  The  Calvinist  confounds  all  true  distinc¬ 
tions.  Knowledge  is  one  thing  :  volition  quite  another  : 
hence  if  God  is  under  the  necessity  of  predetermining 
things  in  order  to  know  them,  then  the  legitimate 
product  is  foreordination,  instead  of  foreknowledge. 
This  will  be  clearly  indicated  by  a  moment’s  reflection. 
Suppose  the  reader  should  try  to  increase  his  knowl- 


280  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

edge  by  an  act  of  volition.  Let  him  seek  to  know 
something  of  astronomy,  geology  or  chemistry  by  mere 
determinations.  Let  him  endeavor  to  acquire  knowl¬ 
edge  of  human  activities  by  sitting  in  his  study  day 
after  day,  doing  nothing  but  exercising  his  will-power. 
Is  it  not  apparent  at  a  glance  that  the  only  knowledge 
possible  in  such  circumstances  is  that  concerning  self? 
He  knows  what  he  has  determined,  relative  to  self  and 
others,  but  beyond  this,  absolutely  nothing. 

Certainly  not ;  because  knowledge  does  not  and 
can  not  come  in  such  ways.  So  far  from  being  the 
product  of  volition,  knowledge  forms  the  proper  means 
for  a  discriminate  and  effective  volition  :  Knowledge 
is  the  clear  perception  of  things,  not  the  determination 
of  them.  As  this  is  all  the  foreknowledge  allowed 
God  by  the  Calvinist,  it  follows  that  the  term  is  a 
misnomer.  It  is  divine  foreordination  ;  as  Dr.  Breck¬ 
inridge  says,  All  things  that  will  be  actual  he  knows 
as  being  determined  by  his  will.” 

Let  us  now  consider  the  arguments  of  Dr.  Cobb 
against  the  Arminian  conception  of  God’s  prescience. 
The  following  points  are  to  be  noted  :  ( i )  Dr.  Cobb 
acknowledges  that  from  any  conception  of  divine  fore¬ 
knowledge  the  “mystery  ”  is  not  eliminated.  “The 
modus  of  the  connection  between  the  divine  foreknowl¬ 
edge  and  the  world  is,  from  any  point  of  view,  a  mys¬ 
tery.  The  five  theories  we  have  examined  may  be 
regarded  as  differing  simply  in  the  location  of  the 
mystery  ;  ”  hence  (2)  As  I  have  said,  the  question  is 
not  What  view  is  free  from  difficulties  ?  but  What 
theory  is  most  free  from  contradictions  and  mysteries  ? 
Consequently  after  elucidating  the  Calvinistic  doctrine, 
Dr.  Cobb  says,  “  It  is  my  conviction  that  every  one  of 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


28l 


these  mysteries,  except  the  last,  results,  when  carried 
to  its  logical  issues,  in  inconceivableness  and  contra¬ 
diction.  That  this  is  not  true  of  the  last  is  witnessed, 

I  hold,  by  the  analogy  of  our  every-day  experience. 
All  the  vast  and  complicated  business  of  life  is  carried 
on  in  implicit  reliance  on  the  law  that  free  choices  are 
practically  certain  beforehand ;  and  that  men  who 
may  go  in  any  one  of  various  ways  will  choose  to  go  in 
a  particular  way.  The  uncertainties  of  this  approxi¬ 
mation  result  from  imperfect  data,  not  from  an  unsound 
principle.”  The  last  paragraph  will  be  noticed  in  due 
time.  Suffice  for  the  present  that  we  clearly  see  Dr. 
Cobb’s  reason  for  rejecting  the  Arminian  doctrine  of 
prescience.  Not  on  account  of  its  mystery,  but  because 
of  its  ‘‘inconceivableness  and  contradiction.”  (3)  Dr. 
Cobb  makes  some  important  admissions.  “  It  would 
be  hazardous  for  any  one  to  assert  that  Whedon’s  the¬ 
ory  of  the  divine  foreknowledge  is,  on  the  face  of  it, 
contrary  to  Holy  Scripture.  Indeed,  random  assertions 
of  this  nature  have  been  quite  too  current  on  the  part 
of  both  Calvinists  and  Arminians  ;  it  ought  to  be 
acknowledged  frankly  that  a  long  line  of  patient 
expositors  in  each  of  these  great  bodies  has  developed, 
in  either  case,  a  system  of  Biblical  theology  which  has 
a  fair  measure  of  consistency  and  comprehensiveness.  ’  ’ 
“  We  go  as  far  as  any  Arminian  in  maintaining  the 
power  of  alternate  choice.”  Quoting  the  words  of 
Charnock,  ‘‘  Man  hath  a  power  to  do  otherwise  than 
that  which  God  foreknows  he  will  do.”  Dr.  Cobb 
says,”  Thus  far,  then,  we  hold,  distinctly  and  heartily, 
with  the  Arminians.”  Speaking  of  the  usual  Calvin- 
istic  doctrine,  he  says,  “.  .  .  .  there  is  one  outwork  of 
the  fortress  which  I  think  must  be  abandoned.  .  . 


282  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

I  refer  to  the  identification  of  both  knowledge  and  will 
with  the  simple  essence  of  God  ;  ”  he  thinks  a  very 
different  impression  is  made  by  the  Scriptures  which 
represent  knowledge  and  will  as  distinct,  so  “that 
while  God  knows  all  things,  he  does  not  will  what  he 
hates.”  Once  more.  “We  conclude  that  the  tradi¬ 
tional  view  of  the  divine  foreknowledge  stands  in  need 
of  no  modification  save  the  holding  fast  the  distinction 
in  God  between  knowledge  and  will  ;  the  former  being 
fixed  from  eternity  •  the  latter  being  gradually  accom¬ 
plished  in  time.” 

If  I  mistake  not,  these  quotations — with  their  log¬ 
ical  implications — will  suffice  to  show  the  “  inconceiva¬ 
bleness  and  contradiction  ”  of  Dr.  Cobb’s  position  ; 
for  ( a )  Granting  the  essential  difference  between  the 
divine  knowledge  and  will,  and  asserting  that  God 
does  not  will  that  which  he  hates,  the  conclusion  will 
surely  follow  that  God  foreknows  many  things  prior 
to  volition  ;  e.  g.,  all  things  which  he  hates.  But  as 
most  of  the  free  actions  of  men  are  evil — which  the 
infinitely  pure  God  hates  with  a  perfect  hatred — the 
vast  majority  of  future  free  actious  are  known  inde¬ 
pendently  of  the  divine  will.  To  me,  this  seems  to  be 
correct  reasoning — the  legitimate  conclusion  from  the 
premises.  But  Dr.  Cobb  thinks  differently.  If  I  have 
correctly  interpreted  his  language,  he  will  reply,  God 
has  a  knowledge  of  future  free  actions,  but  not  fore¬ 
knowledge.  “The  latter  respects  a  future  certainty, 
which  can  be  made  certain  only  by  God’s  decree.” 
Then  knowledge  differs  from  foreknowledge  as  cer¬ 
tainty  differs  from  uncertainty.  Take  the  other  horn 
of  the  dilemma.  Dr.  Cobb  will  not  deny  the  cer¬ 
tainty  of  the  future  free  actions  of  the  wicked  :  hence, 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  283 

they  have  been  the  subject  of  divine  decree.  But  Dr. 
Cobb  declares  God  does  not  will  what  he  hates.  The 
truth  is,  Dr.  Cobb  has  deceived  himself  concerning 
the  nature  of  foreknowledge  and  certainty.  If  God 
knows  that  which  he  hates  without  willing  it,  he 
knows  the  future  free  acts  of  the  wicked  ;  that  is  fore¬ 
knowledge.  I  care  not  at  this  juncture  whether  these 
acts  are,  or  are  not  certain.  I  do  not  propose  to  be 
entangled  in  a  web  of  fallacies  composed  of  different 
meanings  of  the  term  certain. 

The  affirmation  that  there  is  an  essential  difference 
between  God’s  knowledge  and  his  foreknowledge  can 
not  be  maintained.  True,  as  Dr.  Cobb  declares,  “  We 
can  conceive  him  as  a  perfect  God  without  foreknowl¬ 
edge,”  simply  because  both  terms  refer  to  one  attri¬ 
bute.  Had  there  been  no  creation  there  would  have 
been  no  foreknowledge  of  free  actions,  simply  because 
there  would  have  been  no  free  agents.  Yet  there  was 
the  attribute  of  omniscience  with  its  infinite  capacities. 
Should  Dr.  Cobb  say  I  have  yielded  the  contest  in  his 
favor,  I  would  courteously  reply,  Nay  ;  let  me  ask  a 
question.  Why  did  God  create  the  present  moral  sys¬ 
tem  instead  of  some  other  ?  Because  it  was  the  best 
possible  system.  Omniscience  saw  the  best  of  all 
possibilities.  Will  determined  the  actuality.  If  I 
am  not  mistaken  this  is  conceded  by  Dr.  Cobb. 
Speaking  of  the  possibilities  of  creation  he  says, 

‘  ‘  Granting  that  there  is  no  chronological  separation 
between  the  knowledge  of  possibilities  and  of  realities, 
we  still  insist,  with  Whedon  himself,  that  volition 
must  logically  come  after  perception.”  ( b )  Dr.  Cobb 
is  involved  in  serious  contradictions.  Of  Charnock’s 
views  of  foreknowledge  he  says,  “Dr.  Whedon  will 


284  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

accord  (as  do  we)  with  Charnock’s  account  of  the  na¬ 
ture  of  foreknowledge.”  This  eminent  Puritan  divine 
says,  “  God’s  foreknowledge  is  not,  simply  considered, 
the  cause  of  anything.  It  puts  nothing  into  things, 
but  only  beholds  them  as  present,  and  arising  from 
their  proper  causes . God  foreknows  things  be¬ 

cause  they  will  come  to  pass  ;  but  things  are  not  future 
because  God  knows  them.”  But  now  for  a  radical 
change  ;  he  continues,  “  No  reason  can  be  given  why 
God  knows  a  thing  to  be,  but  because  he  infallibly 
wills  it  to  be.”  Plainly,  here  is  a  serious  contradic¬ 
tion.  Eet  the  reader  compare  them.  In  the  first 
quotation  it  is  declared  foreknowledge  “puts  nothing 
into  things”;  it  “  only  beholds  them  as  present,” 
coming  “  from  their  proper  causes.”  God  foreknows 
them  “because  they  will  come  to  pass”  ;  but  presto, 
change  ;  now  God  can  foreknow  only  as  “he  infallibly 
wills  it  to  be.”  Evidently  this  glaring  contradiction 
was  perceived  by  Dr.  Cobb.  He  tries  to  break  its 
force  by  saying,  “  If  any  one  chooses  to  say  Charnock 
wras  an  Arminian  on  the  will,  but  a  Calvinist  on  the 
decrees,  we  will  not  dispute  about  names.”  But  this 
will  not  do.  May  I  remind  Dr.  Cobb  that  the  dispute 
is  not  about  names,  nor  whether  Charnock  was  or  was 
not  an  Arminian  on  the  will.  It  is  a  dispute  concern¬ 
ing  consistency,  for  the  quotations  refer  to  the  nature 
of  divine  foreknowledge.  True,  among  the  citations 
are  affirmations  of  human  freedom  ;  but  the  majority 
of  them  refer  to  foreknowledge,  as  is  conceded  by  Dr. 
Cobb  when  he  says,  ‘  ‘  Dr.  Whedon  wTill  accord  (as  do 
we)  with  Charnock’s  account  of  the  nature  of  fore¬ 
knowledge.”  Hence,  the  contradiction  remains.  In 
the  full  exercise  of  his  liberty  Dr.  Cobb  may  choose 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  285 

his  position  ;  but  as  an  Arminian,  I  object  to  such  an 
interpretation  of  the  power  of  alternate  choice  as  will 
allow  him  to  accept  two  contradictory  postulates. 

Once  more  :  his  remark  that  “New  England  Cal¬ 
vinists  have  ever  had  a  distinct  and  clear-cut  convic¬ 
tion  that  God  foreknows  with  infallible  certainty  all 
things  from  all  eternity”  is  ambiguous,  and  uninten¬ 
tionally  misleading.  The  remark  is  true,  because 
“New  England  Calvinists  have  ever  had  a  distinct 
and  clear-cut  conviction  ”  that  God  decreed  all  things. 
By  referring  to  Chapter  11.  of  Part  I.  the  reader  will 
see  the  correctness  of  this  proposition.  Dwight,  Em¬ 
mons,  Hopkins,  Griffin,  D.  T.  Fiske  and  Lawrence 
agree  in  teaching  that  God  foreknows  only  as  he  de¬ 
crees  ;  hence  the  certainty  is  a  divine  determination. 
What  kind  of  a  certainty  is  Dr.  Cobb  discussing  ? 
Repeatedly,  does  he  use  the  term  (see  pp.  682,  685- 
687,  693.  694).  Is  it  a  certainty  which  is  a  will  be  or 
a  must  be  ?  Evidently  the  former,  for  he  says,  “  We 
hold  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  men  always  do  (not 
must)  choose  this  rather  than  that  because  they  are 
persuaded  so  to  do,  and  that  since  all  these  objects  of 
persuasion  in  all  their  connections  were  infallibly  fore¬ 
known  by  God,  he  infallibly  foreknew  the  decisions 
of  the  will.  We  hold  that  God  has  created  a  system 
of  free  beings  able  in  every  case  to  choose  otherwise 
than  as  they  do,  —  finite  and  fallible,  it  is  true,  and  so 
often  choosing  wrong — but  yet  with  sense  enough  to 
choose  in  every  case  as  the  thing  looks  to  them  ;  and 
that  their  Maker  can  always  tell  how  it  will  look  to 
them.  We  go  as  far  as  any  Arminian  in  maintaining 
the  power  of  alternate  choice.”  Very  well.  This  is 
good  enough  Arminianism  for  me,  and  I  should  judge, 


286  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

for  Dr.  Whedon.  One  quotation  will  suffice.  “  If 
any  power  be  planted  in  an  agent,  God  who  placed  it 
there,  must  know  it.  And  if  that  power  be,  as  we 
shall  assume  to  have  proved,  a  power  to  do  otherwise 
than  the  agent  really  does  do,  God  may  be  conceived 
to  know  it,  and  to  know  it  in  every  specific  instance.”  1 
In  the  light  of  this  agreement  let  us  consider  the  ana¬ 
logical  argument  by  which  Dr.  Cobb  seeks  to  show  the 
validity  of  the  ‘  ‘  traditional  view.  ”  “  All  the  vast  and 

complicated  business  of  life  is  carried  on  in  implicit 
reliance  on  the  law  that  free  choices  are  practically 
certain  beforehand  ;  and  that  men  who  may  go  in  any 
one  of  various  ways  will  choose  to  go  in  a  particular 
way.  The  uncertainties  of  this  approximation  result 
from  imperfect  data,  not  from  an  unsound  principle  ; 
hence  what  is  so  high  a  degree  of  certainty  to  the 
finite  apprehension  becomes  absolute  certainty  to  the 
infinite  apprehension.”  Unquestionably  this  is  true; 
no  one  can  successfully  deny  that  man  is  a  rational 
creature  ;  that  while  he  is  free,  yet  there  are  limita¬ 
tions,  rules  and  regulations  by  which  he  is  governed. 

‘  Power  of  contrary  choice  ’  ’  does  not  mean  irration¬ 
ality  nor  lawlessness.  The  principle  elucidated  by  Dr. 
Cobb,  is  not  only  recognized,  but  cheerfully  accepted 
by  Arminians.  2 * *  So  far  the  issue  has  not  been  reached. 
The  question  is  this.  How  does  God  foreknow  with 
infallible  certainty  ?  Is  it  because  he  has  so  decreed  ? 
If  so,  how  can  free  beings  “  choose  otherwise  than  as 
the)7  do”?  How  can  they  choose  wrong — as  Dr. 


1  “  The  Freedom  of  the  Will,”  pp.  271,  272. 

2  See  Whedon’s  “Will.”  Chap.  V.  “Uniformities  of  Volition” 

Cocker’s  “  The  Theistic  Conception  of  the  World.”  Chap.  XI.  ‘‘Moral, 

Government.” 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  287 

Cobb  affirms  they  often  do — since  their  choice  is  as 
the  decree  ?  Hence  it  would  seem  that  all  the  cer¬ 
tainty  for  which  Dr.  Cobb  is  contending  is  a  will  be, 
perfectly  removed  from  the  must  be.  On  the  other 
hand,  he  uses  language  which  seem  to  demand  the  op¬ 
posite  conclusion.  This  will  appear  as  we  consider 
(V)  The  inconceivableness  of  the  Arminian’s  posi¬ 
tion.  Dr.  Cobb  says  that  all  theories  antagonistic  to 
Calvinism,  deny  “  God’s  independent  knowledge  of 
the  free  acts  of  his  creatures.  We  mean  by  this 
knowledge,  that  which  he  draws  from  himself  alone* 

.  .  .  .  Dorner  and  Whedon  hold  that  if  God  fore¬ 
knows  free  acts,  he  draws  the  knowledge  from  the 
agents,  not  from  himself.”  This  objection  is  pressed 
with  considerable  force,  as  when  Dr.  Cobb  says, 

‘  ‘  When  we  inquire  ‘  How  can  God  draw  his  knowl¬ 
edge  from  an  object  not  yet  in  existence,  a  zero?’  we 
are  not  asking  after  a  method,  but  suggesting  a  con¬ 
tradiction .  Before  the  creation  of  the  world, 

God  infallibly  knew  the  volition  I  am  this  moment 
exercising.  Is  it  not  absurd  to  say  that  he  had 
then  derived  this  certain  knowledge  from  my  act, 
which  (in  Whedon’ s  view)  had  nothing  whatever  to 
make  it  certain  till  this  moment  ?  ”  In  what  sense  does 
Arminianism  deny  “  God’s  independent  knowledge  of 
the  free  acts  of  his  creatures”?  Manifestly  in  that 
the  free  acts  are  indissolubly  connected  with  a  divine 
predetermination.  Certainly  as  the  creation  of  man 
was  an  independent  act  of  God,  so  far  forth  is  his 
knowledge  of  free  acts  drawn  from  himself.  This  is 
the  fundamental  position  of  Dr.  Whedon,  who  says, 
“  We  may  first  remark  that  our  view  of  free  agency 
does  not  so  much  require  in  God  a  foreknowledge  of  a 


288  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

peculiar  kind  of  event  as  a  knowledge  in  him  of  a 

peculiar  quality  existent  in  the  free  agent . If 

any  power  be  planted  in  an  agent,  God,  who  placed  it 
there,  must  know  it.”  3 

Answering  an  objection  that  if  the  free  act  may 
occur  in  any  one  of  many  ways,  the  divine  prescience 
must  be  uncertain,  Dr.  Richard  Watson  says,  “  .  .  .  . 
not  unless  any  person  can  prove,  that  the  divine  pre¬ 
science  is  unable  to  dart  through  all  the  workings  of 
the  human  mind,  all  its  comparisons  of  things  in  the 
judgment,  all  the  influences  of  motives  on  the  affec¬ 
tions,  all  the  hesitancies  and  haltings  of  the  will  to  its 
final  choice.  ‘  Such  knowledge  is  too  wonderful  for 
us,’  but  it  is  the  knowledge  of  him,  who  under- 
standeth  the  thoughts  of  man  afar  off.  ’  ”  4 

Replying  to  Edwards,  Bledsoe  says,  “  Hence,  if 
Edwards  merely  means  that  God  could  not  foreknow 
a  human  volition,  unless  he  foreknew  all  the  circum¬ 
stances  in  view  of  the  mind  when  it  is  to  act,  as  well 
as  the  nature  and  all  the  circumstances  of  the  mind 
from  which  the  act  is  to  proceed  ;  no  advocate  of  free 
agency  is  at  all  concerned  to  deny  his  position.  It 
may  be  true,  or  it  may  be  false  ;  but  it  establishes 
nothing  which  may  not  be  consistently  admitted  by 
the  advocates  of  free  agency.”  5 

These  extracts  from  representative  Arminians  suf¬ 
ficiently  indicate  the  position  for  which  I  am  contend¬ 
ing  :  hence,  when  Dr.  Cobb  objects  to  what  he  calls 
the  “device  of  the  eternal  now,”  I  am  prepared  for 

3  “  Will,”  p.  271.  See  also,  p.  284. 

4  “Theological  Institutes,”  Vol.  I.,  p.  381.  Watson  quotes  Dr.  S.  Clark 
and  Copleston  to  the  same  effect. 

5  “  Will,”  p.  146.  Dr.  McCabe  is  of  a  different  opinion  ;  but  in  his  con¬ 
ception  of  the  will  he  is  hardly  a  representative  Arminian. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  289 

his  ‘  ‘  fatal  objection,  ’  ’  viz. ,  ‘ ‘  tha4-  God’s  foreknowledge 
of  a  free  choice  exists  at  successive  points  of  human 
history  previous  to  the  formation  of  the  choice.  So 
Scripture  seems  to  represent  it.”  Certainly;  other¬ 
wise  where  is  God’s  foreknowledge  ?  Once  more. 
Speaking  of  Peter’s  vehement  protestation,  and  his 
subsequent  denial,  Dr.  Cobb  asks,  “Did  our  Lord 
know  the  contrary  by  any  reflection  from  the  subse¬ 
quent  denial  ?  The  choice  to  deny  had  no  existence, 
and  never  had  had.  Nor  was  it  conjectured  as  probable, 
but  revealed  as  absolutely  certain.  .  *  .  .  If  one  were 
able,  by  the  argument  ab  ignorantia ,  to  carry  Peter’s 
free  act  of  the  next  morning  into  a  timeless  eternity, 
still  he  could  not  bring  it  back  again  into  an  anterior 
time.  The  mind  recalcitrates  against  such  a  process.” 
This  is  followed  by  his  view  of  foreknowledge.  ‘  ‘  How 
much  simpler  and  more  rational  to  say  that  Christ 
knew  Peter  himself,  with  an  absolute  knowledge  of  all 
his  impulses  ;  knew  the  holy  motives  which  he  would 
freely  resist,  and  the  temptation  to  which  he  would 
freely  yield  ;  aye,  had  known  this  before  the  disciple 
was  born.”  Verily,  I  find  no  fault  with  this.  Inter¬ 
preted  by  my  previous  modifications  and  quotations, 
it  is  the  identical  foreknowledge  of  this  work.  As 
Bushnell  has  truly  said,  God  “foreknows  everything 
first  conditionally,  in  the  world  of  possibility,  before 
he  creates,  or  determines  anything  to  be,  in  the  world 
of  fact.  Otherwise,  all  his  purposes  would  be  grounded 
in  ignorance,  not  in  wisdom,  and  his  knowledge  would 
consist  in  the  following  after  his  will,  to  learn  what 
his  will  has  blindly  determined.”  6 

I  will  now  return  to  the  main  thought  of  this  sec- 


6  “  Nature  and  the  Supernatural,”  p.  50. 


290  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

tion,  considering  (3)  The  Calvinistic  idea  of  permis¬ 
sion.  Dr.  K.  A.  Dawrence  declares  “God  could  not 
foreknow  an  event  which  was  dependent  on  his  posi¬ 
tive  or  permissive  will  until  he  had  purposed  to  accom¬ 
plish  or  permit  it.”  As  all  events  are  included  within 
the  positive  or  permissive  decrees,  this  assertion  must 
be  of  universal  application.  If  the  Calvinist’s  dis¬ 
tinction  between  the  positive  and  permissive  decrees  is 
valid,  then  there  are  some  things  which  God  has 
merely  decreed  to  allow  or  permit ;  the  Divine  Deter¬ 
mination  concern^  not  the  thing  itself — as  in  the  case 
of  the  things  positively  decreed — but  simply  the 
occurrence  of  the  thing.  God  decrees  not  to  stop  it. 
Very  well.  If  this  be  so,  if  God  has  simply  decreed 
'to  permit  some  things  to  occur,  then  he  must  have 
known  prior  to  that  decree  that  the  permitted  things 
were  to  be  :  for  how  is  it  possible  to  permit  a  nonen¬ 
tity  ?  But  if  God  knew  the  existence  of  some  human 
things  without  first  decreeing  them,  then  it  irresistibly 
follows  that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  not  only  prior  to, 
but  so  far  forth,  is  the  ground  of  his  decree.  But  if 
some  of  the  decrees  are  based  upon  the  divine  knowl¬ 
edge,  this  Arminian  wedge  is  sufficient  to  demolish 
the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  decrees:  for  says  the  Calvin¬ 
ist,  The  decrees  are  one.  The  Calvinist  may  choose 
either  horn  of  the  dilemma.  If  he  holds  to  the  dis¬ 
tinction  of  permissive  decrees,  he  will  irresistibly 
gravitate  into  Arminianism.  If  he  denies  the  distinc¬ 
tion  of  permissive  decrees — which  is  pure  and  consist¬ 
ent  Calvinism — he  is  met  by  an  emphatic  Thus  saith 
the  Lord  :  Are  not  my  ways  equal,  O  house  of  Calvin  ? 
Are  not  your  ways  unequal  ? 

(4)  We  now  see  the  utter  groundlessness  of  this 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE}. 


29I 


Calvinistic  assumption  that  God  can  not  know  future 
free  actions  unless  he  has  previously  determined  them. 
It  has  no  warrant  either  in  reason  or  Scripture.  Rea¬ 
son  demands  knowledge  as  the  basis  of  volition — 
human  or  divine.  Where  is  the  passage  of  the  Word 
telling  us  God  can  not  know  until  he  predetermines  ? 
We  look  in  vain  throughout  the  Bible,  for  it  declares 
no  such  doctrine.  It  clearly  teaches  that  God  does 
know  the  future  free  actions  of  men  without  explain¬ 
ing  the  modus  opemndi.  This,  as  the  reader  well 
knows,  the  Arminian  gladly  accepts.  If  the  Calvin¬ 
istic  solution  were  the  only  one  possible,  if  the  alter¬ 
native  were  the  acceptance  of  Calvinism,  or  the 
rejection  of  the  plain  teaching  of  Scripture,  I  could 
only  say,  “  Ret  God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar.” 
It  is  this  firm  adherence  to  the  Bible  that  has  compelled 
me  to  disagree  so  emphatically  with  that  class  of 
Arminian  thinkers  who  deny  the  divine  foreknowledge. 
So  far  I  am  with  my  antagonists,  the  Calvinists. 
This  may  prompt  them  to  say  that  my  confidence  in 
the  Bible  should  lead  me  to  accept  their  doctrines, 
even  though  there  are  some  things  hard  to  be  under¬ 
stood.  But  right  here  I  beg  leave  to  differ.  Walking 
by  faith  is  one  thing,  shutting  my  eyes  to  the  light 
cpiite  another.  By  the  first  I  honor  God  :  by  the  lat¬ 
ter  I  cast  reproach  upon  him,  who  has  said,  “Come 
now,  let  us  reason  together.”  Luther  once  said  :  God 
is  above  mathematics,  logic,  and  reason.  Doubtless 
it  was  piously  meant  ;  but  I  am  sure  it  was  a  very 
foolish  remark.  If  Calvinism  tries  to  vindicate  the 
wrays  of  God  to  men  it  must  do  so  according  to  the 
laws  of  reason  and  the  plain  teachings  of  Scripture. 
Here  is  the  conflict.  I,  with  many  others,  think  its 


292  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

attempts  egregious  failures.  This  is  what  I  am  endeav¬ 
oring  to  prove  ;  with  what  success,  the  reader  must 
judge. 

SECTION  III. 

The  Bible  Testimony  Concerning  the  Divine  Prescience 

and  Will. 

For  centuries  eminent  scholars  have  been  divided 
by  the  question,  What  does  the  Bible  Teach  on  this 
Subject  ?  It  is  evident  at  a  glance  that  if  learned  and 
candid  exegetes  can  not  entirely  agree  in  answering 
this  question,  the  ordinary  Christian  student  may  be 
excused  from  venturing  an  independent  solution. 

Hence  I  shall  rest  satisfied  for  the  present,  by  pre¬ 
senting  the  views  of  eminent  thinkers  who  are  known 
to  belong  to  the  Calvinistic  or  independent  schools  of 
theology.  The  following  testimony  is  worthy  of  spe¬ 
cial  consideration.  If  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Cal¬ 
vinism  are  not  sustained  by  this  examination  it  will 
be  legitimate  to  affirm  that  the  system  is  radically 
unbiblical 

The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  the  precise  nature  of 
the  problem.  It  relates  to  the  Divine  Foresight  and 
Will.  The  Calvinist  affirms  and  the  Arminian  denies 
that  the  will  of  God  is  prior  to,  and  the  basis  of  his 
foreknowledge. 

“  Him,  being  delivered  by  the  determinate  counsel 
and  foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  have  taken,  and  by 
wicked  hands  have  crucified  and  slain  ”  (Acts  ii.  23). 
The  fact  that  foreknowledge  is  the  second  term  avails 
nothing  since  the  process  is  reversed  in  other  passages. 
Alford  says:  “The  counsel  and  foreknowledge  of 
God  are  not  the  same  ;  the  former  designates  his 


AND  MAN'S  MORAL  NATURE}.  293 

Eternal  Plan,  by  which  he  has  arranged  all  things 
(hence  the  determinate  counsel)  the  latter,  the  omni¬ 
science,  by  which  every  part  of  this  plan  is  foreseen 
and  unforgotten  by  him.” 

Meyer  has  the  following:  “This  was  no  work  of 
men,  no  independent  success  of  the  treachery,  which 
would,  in  fact,  testify  against  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus  !  but  it  happened  in  virtue  of  the  fixed,  there¬ 
fore  unalterable,  resolve  and  (in  virtue  of  the)  fore¬ 
knowledge  of  God.” 

“  And  when  the  Gentiles  heard  this,  they  were  glad 
and  glorified  the  word  of  the  Lord  ;  and  as  many  as 
were  ordained  to  eternal  life,  believed  ”  (Acts  xiii.  48). 
This  passage  has  long  been  a  favorite  proof- text  for 
Calvinists.  Thus  Dr.  Cobb  in  the  article  previously 
considered  maintains  that  if  the  more  natural  inter¬ 
pretation  of  1.  Pet.  1-3,  and  Rom.  viii.  29,  favors  the 
Arminian,  the  more  natural  interpretation  of  John  vi. 
37  and  Acts  xiii.  48  favors  the  Calvinist.  7  But  this  is 
by  no  means  a  warrantable  conclusion.  It  is  now 
generally  conceded  that  the  doctrine  of  unconditional 
predestination  is  not  taught  by  the  passage.  Not  a 
few  scholars  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  word  “  or¬ 
dained  ’  ’  is  inaccurate,  the  original  idea  being  better 
expressed  by  “disposed.”  It  is  thus  translated  by 
Alford,  who  says,  “The  Jews  had  judged  themselves 
unworthy  of  eternal  life  ;  the  Gentiles,  as  many  as 
were  disposed  to  eternal  life,  believed.  By  whom 
so  disposed,  is  not  here  declared,  nor  need  the 
word  be  in  this  place  further  particularized.  We 
know  that  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  us  the  will  to 
believe,  and  that  the  preparation  of  the  heart  is  of  him  ; 


1  “  Rib.  Sacra,”  1883,  p.  667. 


294  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

but  to  find  in  this  text  preordination  to  life  asserted, 
is  to  force  both  the  word  and  the  context  to  a  meaning 
which  they  do  not  contain.”  Meyer  says,  “  It  was 
dogmatic  arbitrariness  which  converted  our  passage 
into  a  proof  of  the  decretum  absolutum.  For  Luke 
leaves  out  of  account  the  relation  of  ‘  being  ordained  ’ 
to  free  self-determination  ;  the  object  of  his  remark  is 
not  to  teach  a  doctrine,  but  to  indicate  a  historical 
sequence.” 

Dr.  Jenks  in  the  Comprehensive  Commentary  says, 
“  It  would  seem  we  must  look  elsewhere  for  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  absolute  election.” 

Bloomfield  affirms,  “  That  it  is  a  popular  mode  of 
expression,  is  proved  by  Rabbinical  citations  of  Light- 
food  and  Wescott,  who  give  a  score  of  examples  of  the 
phrase  ordained  to  future  life — to  punishment,  to  life, 
to  hell.” 

“  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predes¬ 
tinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son,  that  he 
might  be  the  firstborn  among  many  brethren  ”  (Rom. 
viii.  29). 

Dr.  Albert  Barnes  says  “  The  literal  meaning  of  the 
word  can  not  be  a  matter  of  dispute.  It  denotes  prop¬ 
erly  to  know  beforehand  ;  to  be  acquainted  with  future 
events.  This  passage  does  not  affirm  why  or  how  or 
on  what  grounds  God  knew  that  some  would  be  saved. 
It  simply  affirms  the  fact.”  Godet  says,  “  The  decree 
of  predestination  is  founded  on  the  act  of  foreknowl¬ 
edge.”  In  the  American  edition  of  Godet’ s  Kpistle  to 
the  Romans,  the  editor,  Dr.  T.  W.  Chambers,  combats 
this  interpretation  and  affirms  the  usual  Calvinistic 
doctrine.  Like  the  eminent  theologians  whom  we 
have  already  considered,  Dr.  Chambers  fails  to  show 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


295 


why  “  a  sovereign  God  does  not  save  the  non-elect. 
Calvinism  can  not  stand  erect  in  the  presence  of  gospel 
exegesis. 

Speaking  of  the  divine  call,  Alford  says,”  It  sprung 
from  God’s  foreknowledge,  co-ordinate  with  his  fore¬ 
determination  of  certain  persons  to  be  conformed  to 
the  image  of  his  Son.”  Again,  in  alluding  to  the 
meaning  of  foreknew,  he  says,  “  This  has  been  much 
disputed,  the  Pelagian  view, — ‘  those  who  he  foreknew 
would  believe  ’  is  taken  by  Origen,  Chrysostom, 
Augustine,  and  others  ;  the  sense  of  foreloved,  by 
Grotius,  and  others  ;  that  of  foredecreed,  by  Stuart 
and  others  ;  that  of  elected,  adopted  as  his  sons,  by 
Calvin,  who  says,  ‘The  foreknowledge  of  God,  of 
which  Paul  here  makes  mention,  is  not  bare  prescience, 
as  some  ignorant  persons  foolishly  pretend,  but  adop¬ 
tion,  whereby  God  hath  ever  distinguished  his  Sons 
from  the  wicked.’  That  this  latter  is  implied,  is  cer¬ 
tain  :  but  I  prefer  taking  the  word  in  the  ordinary 
sense  of  foreknew,  especially  as  it  is  guarded  from 
being  a  ‘  bare  prescience  ’  by  what  follows.  .  .  .  His 
foreknowdedge  was  not  a  mere  being  previously  aware 
how  a  series  of  events  would  happen  ;  but  was  co-or¬ 
dinate  with,  and  inseparable  from,  his  having  pre¬ 
ordained  all  things.” 

If,  as  Alford  declares,  the  divine  foreknowledge 
and  foredetermination  are  co-ordinate  what  reason 
has  the  Calvinist  to  assert  that  the  foreknowledge 
must  be  subordinate  to  the  predermination  ?  The  fol¬ 
lowing  is  from  Dr.  David  Brown  in  ‘‘The  Portable 
Commentary.”  “  In  what  sense  are  we  to  take  the 
word  ‘  foreknow  ’  here  ?  ‘  Those  who  he  foreknew 

would  repent  and  believe,’  say  Pelagians  of  every  age 


296  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

and  every  hue.  But  this  is  to  thrust  into  the  text 
what  is  contrary  to  the  whole  spirit,  and  even  letter  of 
the  Apostle’s  teaching  (see  Ch.  ix.  11  ;  11.  Timothy 
i.  9).  In  Ch.  xi.  2,  and  Psalm  i.  6,  God’s  ‘  knowledge  ’ 
of  his  people  can  not  he  restricted  to  a  mere  foresight 
of  future  events,  or  acquaintance  with  what  is  passing 
here  below.  Does  ‘whom,  he  did  foreknow,’  then, 
mean  whom  he  foreordained  ?  Scarcely,  because  both 
foreknowledge  and  foreordination  are  here  mentioned, 
and  the  one  as  the  cause  of  the  other.  It  is  difficult 
indeed  for  our  limited  minds  to  distinguish  them  as 
states  of  the  Divine  Mind  towards  men  ;  especially 
since  in  Acts  ii.  23,  ‘  the  counsel  ’  is  put  before  ‘  the 
foreknowledge  of  God,’  while  in  1.  Peter  i.  2  ‘  election  ’ 
is  said  to  be  ‘  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God.’ 
But  probably  God’s  foreknowledge  of  his  own  people 
means  his  peculiar,  gracious,  complacency  in  them , 
while  his  ‘  predestinating  ’  or  ‘  foreordaining  ’  them 
signifies  his  fixed  purpose,  flowing  from  this,  to  ‘  save 
them  and  call  them  with  an  holy  calling  ’  (11.  Timothy 
i.  9)  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son.”  So 
far  as  this  solution  bears  upon  the  generic  question,  it 
is  inclined  toward  Arminianism ;  for  Dr.  Brown  dis¬ 
tinctly  asserts  that  the  predestination  flows  from  the 
foreknowledge. 

Meyer’s  view  is  worthy  of  particular  attention  :  he 
says,  “7 rpoy  never  in  the  New  Testament  (not  even 
in  xi.  2,  1.  Peter  i.  20)  means  anything  else  than  to 
know  beforehand  (Acts  xxvi.  5  ;  11.  Peter  iii.  17  ;  Ju¬ 
dith  ix.  6  ;  Wisd.  vi.  13  ;  viii.  8  ;  xviii.  6) . 

That  in  classic  usage  it  ever  means  anything  else,  can 

not  be  at  all  proved . It  is  God’s  being  aware 

in  his  plan,  by  means  of  which,  before  the  subjects 


AND  MAN’SMORAL  NATURE.  297 

are  destined  by  him  to  salvation,  he  knows  whom  he 
has  to  destine  thereto.”  8 

The  following  from  Dr.  Moses  Stuart  is  substan¬ 
tially  the  same  as  the  view  of  Dr.  Barnes.  “  The  text 
does  not  say  why  or  how  God  foreknew  ;  but  merely 
that  he  did  so.”  Again  “  .  .  .  .all  those  of  any 
party  in  theology  who  draw  from  7 1 poky  v go  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  God  foreordained  or  chose  or  loved,  out 
of  his  mere  good  pleasure,  on  the  one  hand  ;  or  from 
his  foresight  of  faith  and  good  works  on  the  other  ; 
deduce  from  the  text  what  is  not  in  it,  for  it  says 

neither  the  one  nor  the  other . It  lies  on  the  face 

of  the  whole  paragraph,  that  certainty  of  future  glory  to 
all  the  uX r/roi  &sov,  is  what  the  writer  means  to  affirm  : 
and  to  affirm  it  by  showing  that  it  is  a  part  of  the 
everlasting  purposes  of  God.”  9 

In  commenting  on  this  passage  Olshausen  informs 
his  readers  that  ‘  ‘  the  expressions  in  these  verses,  which 
refer  to  the  doctrine  of  election  by  grace  ....  will 
be  further  explained  at  Rom.  ix.”  Considering  the 
different  passages  where  the  terms  ‘  ‘  foresee  ”  “  fore¬ 
know”  “predetermine”  “purpose”  occur,  he  says 
they  “express  the  knowledge  and  the  will  of  God, 
before  the  object  of  his  knowledge  comes  into  outward 
manifestations.  And  as  all  the  expressions  applied 
in  Scripture  to  God  have  been  selected,  not  on  his  ac¬ 
count,  but  for  the  sake  of  man,  so  too,  it  is  only  for 
man  that  they  hold  perfectly  good.  Considered  from 
the  human  point  of  view,  God  does  in  fact  foreknow, 
although  for  himself  the  whole  co-exists  in  one  eternal 
present.  Again,  in  the  expressions  in  question,  there 

8  Com.  Vol.  II.,  pp.  93,  95.  See  Note  I  at  the  end  of  this  Chapter. 

9  “  Com.”  pp.  385-387. 


298  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


are  evidently  two  distinct  classes,  first  those  which  ex¬ 
press  knowledge  or  discernment,  then  those  which  ap¬ 
ply  to  the  will.  It  may  be  objected  that,  although  the 
will  always  presupposes  the  knowledge  of  that  which 
a  man  wills,  yet  knowledge  need  not  always  be  com¬ 
bined  with  the  volition  of  the  thing  known.  God, 
for  instance,  knows  evil  as  such,  not  simply  as  a  phe- 
nomenon  ;  he  discerns  in  the  evil  deed  what  it  is  that 
makes  evil,  but  not  the  will.  Yet,  correct  as  this  is,  it 
has  no  relation  to  the  phraseology  of  Paul.  The 
apostle  never  speaks  but  of  God’s  knowledge  of  the 
evil  phenomenon  ;  but  this,  God  wills  as  well  as 
knows  ;  and  it  is  only  and  solely  because  he  wills  it 
that  it  comes  into  manifestation.  We  must,  therefore, 
altogether  reject  the  Pelagian  distinction  of  a  prcevisio 
and  prcsdestinatio  when  we  view  the  question  in 
relation  to  the  good  (since  it  has  indeed  with  regard 
to  evil  a  degree  of  truth)  as  being  of  no  service  at  all 
in  solving  the  difficulties  in  the  apostle’s  writings. 
In  Paul,  God’s  foreknowledge  always  implies  a  fore¬ 
working  and  a  foredetermination,  just  as  his  forede¬ 
termination  is  never  without  foreknowledge.”  1 

We  shall  have  occasion  to  reconsider  the  position 
of  this  eminent  theologian.  Tet  it  suffice  for  the  pres¬ 
ent  that  we  ascertain  his  exact  standing  on  the  point 
now  at  issue,  viz.,  Is  the  determination  of  God  prior 
to  his  knowledge?  He  grants  that  it  is  legitimate  to 
say  that  a  thing  may  be  known  without  its  being 
willed  :  that  God  discerns  the  generic  nature  of  evil 
without  willing  it  (although  he  does  will  the  mani¬ 
festations  or  forms  of  evil)  ;  while  he  thinks  God’s 
foreknowledge  always  implies  a  foreworking,  and  a 


1  “  Com.”  Vol.  IV.,  p.  82. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE  299 

foredetermination,  lie  also  affirms  that  this  determina¬ 
tion  is  never  without  foreknowledge,  which  not  only 
necessitates  the  conclusion  that  foreknowledge  can  not 
be  subordinate  to  predestination,  but  fairly  implies 
that  prescience  is  prior  to  volition 

The  following  from  the  Commentary  of  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge  is  worthy  of  careful  consideration  “  It  is  evi¬ 
dent,  on  the  one  hand,  that  jtpnyvmdis  expresses  some¬ 
thing  more  than  the  presence  of  which  all  men  and  all 
events  are  the  subjects  ;  and  on  the  other,  something 
different  from  the  itpoopi tijuos  (predestination)  ex¬ 
pressed  by  the  following  word  ‘  whom  he  foreknew, 
them  he  also  predestinated.’  The  predestination  fol¬ 
lows,  and  is  grounded  on  the  foreknowledge.  The 
foreknowledge,  therefore,  expresses  the  act  of  cogni¬ 
tion  or  recognition — the  fixing,  so  to  speak,  the  mind 
upon,  which  involves  the  idea  of  selection.  If  we 
look  over  a  number  of  objects  with  the  view  of  select¬ 
ing  some  of  them  for  a  definite  purpose,  the  first  act  is 
to  fix  the  mind  on  some,  to  the  neglect  of  the  others  ; 
and  the  second  is  to  destine  them  to  the  proposed  end. 
So  God  is  represented  as  looking  on  the  fallen  mass  of 
men,  and  fixing  on  some  whom  he  predestinates  to 
salvation.  This  is  the  npuyvcodii,  the  foreknowledge, 
of  which  the  apostle  here  speaks.  It  is  the  knowing, 
fixing  upon,  or  selecting  those  who  are  to  be  predes¬ 
tinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  the  Son  of 
God.” 

This  concession  is  of  great  importance.  When  Dr. 
Hodge  admits  that  “  the  predestination  follows  and  is 
grounded  on  the  foreknowledge,”  he  has  virtually 
decided  the  contest  against  his  own  system.  As  I 
have  remarked,  this  is  the  very  question  at  issue,  and 


300  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

the  one  which  I  propose  to  keep  before  the  reader,  viz., 
Does  the  determination  of  God  come  before  his  fore¬ 
knowledge  ?  Dr.  Hodge  says  it  does  not.  On  the 
contrary  he  affirms  that  it  follows  and  is  grounded  on 
the  foreknowledge.  His  after  explanation  is  valuable 
only  as  it  illustrates  the  difficulties  by  which  the  Cal¬ 
vinist  is  surrounded  when  he  attempts  to  evade  the 
legitimate  consequences  of  the  concession.  Take 
his  analogy  of  a  finite  mind  looking  “  over  a  number 
of  objects  with  the  view  of  selecting  some  of  them  for  a 
definite  purpose,”  and  if  it  proves  anything,  it  cer¬ 
tainly  shows  that  a  given  object  is  selected  in  propor¬ 
tion  as  it  is  fitted  to  fulfill  the  required  end.  On  the 
same  principle  is  the  Divine  selection  made.2 

As  the  term  “  foreknew  ”  in  Rom.  xi.  2  is  of  the 
same  nature  as  the  passage  under  consideration,  we 
may  legitimately  pass  to  the  Petrine  conception  of  this 
subject.  In  the  First  Epistle  we  are  told  that  election 
is  “  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father, 
through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  unto  obedience  and 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  ”  (i.  2).  Rev. 
A.  R.  Fausset  says  this  passage  means  “foreordaining 
love  (v.  20)  inseparable  from  God’s  fo /^knowledge,  the 
origin  from  which,  and  pattern  according  to  which 
election  takes  place.  Acts  ii.  23,  and  Romans  xi.  2, 
prove  ‘  foreknowledge  ’  to  be  foreordination.  God’s 
foreknowledge  is  not  the  perception  of  any  ground  of 
action  out  of  himself ;  still  in  it  liberty  is  compre¬ 
hended,  and  all  absolute  constraint  debarred.”  3 

If  election  is  inseparable  from  God’s  foreknowledge, 

2  For  the  views  taught  in  Lange’s  Commentary,  see  Note  II.  at  the  end 
of  this  Chapter. 

3  “  The  Portable  Commentary.” 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


301 


and  if  this  foreknowledge  is  the  origin  from  which  and 
pattern  according  to  which  it  takes  place,  then  the 
volition  can  not  precede  the  prescience. 

The  following  is  from  Dr.  Cowles  who,  though  not 
a  pronounced  Calvinist  is  not  generally  identified  with 
the  Arminians.  His  reputation  is  that  of  an  earnest, 
independent  commentator.  “In  the  words  ‘elect 
according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  the  Father,’ 
the  difficulties  pertain  to  theology  rather  than  to  inter¬ 
pretation.  The  sense  of  the  words  is  very  obvious  so 
far  as  the  province  of  interpretation  extends.  They 
imply  that  election  is  according  to  God’s  foreknowl¬ 
edge.  This  interprets  their  proper  meaning.  It  re¬ 
mains  for  the  theologian  to  inquire  whether  we  can 
ascertain  how  God  foreknows  the  free  moral  activities 
of  men  ;  how  the  fact  that  he  does,  can  be  harmonized 
with  man’s  freedom  ;  also,  whether  he  must  be  sup¬ 
posed  to  elect  men  according  to  his  own  foreknowledge 
of  what  they  will  do  without  his  own  working  in 
them  morally,  or  with  and  under  this  spiritual  in¬ 
working,  etc.  In  other  words,  does  his  election  hinge 
upon  his  foreknowing  things  as  they  are,  or  things 
as  they  are  not  ?  Things  as  they  are,  means  a  world  of 
free  and  morally  responsible  agents  with  whose  free¬ 
dom  God  never  interferes,  but  always  honors  and  rec¬ 
ognizes  it :  means  a  system  of  spiritual  agencies  from 
God  working  toward  the  salvation  of  men,  which 
agencies  of  the  Spirit,  some  men  resist  to  their  own 
ruin.  The  foreknowledge,  therefore,  upon  which 
election  turns  is  not  foreknowing  what  men  would  do 
if  there  were  no  Holy  Ghost,  or  what  they  would  do 
if  his  influences  were  withheld  ;  but  it  is  rather  fore¬ 
knowing  what  men  will  do  under  the  truth  as  im- 


302  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

pressed  by  the  Spirit.  Hence,  we  can  readily  appre¬ 
ciate  the  supreme,  unparalleled  wisdom  of  the  exhor¬ 
tation  :  ‘  work  out  your  own  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling,  for  it  is  God  who  worketh  in  you  to  will 
and  do  of  his  own  pleasure  ’  (Phil.  ii.  12,  13). ”4 

It  will  now  be  in  order  to  pause  and  see  what  our 
investigation  has  revealed.  And  once  more  I  respect¬ 
fully  request  the  reader  to  remember  the  precise  point 
at  issue.  I  have  repeatedly  said  that  the  Arminian  does 
not  endeavor  to  tell  how  God  can  foreknow  the  future 
actions  of  free  agents  :  he  simply  affirms  the  fact,  and 
on  the  basis  of  that  fact  he  declares  that  the  Divine 
Will  must  be  conditioned  on  that  knowledge.  This  is 
emphatically  denied  by  the  Calvinist.  As  I  have 
clearly  shown  in  Chapter  hi.  of  Part  I.,  almost  every 
Calvinistic  theologian  from  Augustine  to  Hodge 
has  declared  the  priority  of  the  Divine  Will,  affirming 
that  God  could  know  the  future  free  actions  only  as 
he  had  previously  determined  to  permit,  or  to  bring 
them  to  pass.  Hence,  it  is  the  Calvinist  who  attempts 
to  search  the  mysteries  of  God,  and  declares  that 
which  is  not  revealed. 

We  have  examined  this  declaration  in  the  light  of 
reason,  and  have  found  it  to  be  mere  assumption. 
Then  we  passed  to  the  Scriptural  argument  and  dis¬ 
covered  the  same  unwarranted  conclusion.  On  the 
testimony  of  eminent  theologians  who  are  either  inde¬ 
pendent  of  all  distinctive  schools,  or  inclined  to  the 
Calvinistic,  we  find  that  the  passages  which  have  been 
claimed  by  the  Calvinists  do  not  teach  their  doctrine. 
Barnes  and  Stuart  declare  that  Rom.  viii.  29  does  not 
reveal  the  “how”  or  the  “why,”  or  “on  what 


4  “  The  Shorter  Epistles.” 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  303 

grounds  ”  God  foreknew,  but  simply  the  fact.  Alford 
denies  the  priority  of  the  divine  Will  by  affirming  that 
the  knowledge  is  co-ordinate  with  the  volition. 
Brown  says  that  ‘  ‘  Whom  he  did  foreknow  ’  ’  can 
scarcely  mean  whom  he  foreordained,  because  both 
terms  are  used,  “and  the  one  as  the  cause  of  the 
other.”  Meyer  declares  that  the  term  npoy  never 
means  anything  else  than  to  know  beforehand  ;  that 
the  assertion  it  means  anything  else  in  classic  usage 
“can  not  be  at  all  proved.”  Fora  correct  under¬ 
standing  of  Olshausen’s  position,  the  reader  must  bear 
in  mind  the  fact  that  this  author  is  somewhat  peculiar 
in  his  conception  of  God’s  relation  to  evil.  The 
Divine  volition  concerns,  not  wicked  personalities  as 
such,  but  their  manifestations.  The  wicked  are  such 
because  they  resist  the  Infinite  Good,  but  so  far  they 
are  foreknown  of  God,  and  because  he  foreknows  them 
as  wicked,  he  positively  wills  when  and  how  they 
shall  appear  in  time.  But,  the  reader  may  reply,  this 
basing  of  God’s  will  concerning  the  wicked  on  his  fore¬ 
knowledge  of  them,  is  the  generic  position  of  the  Ar- 
minians.  To  which  I  reply,  True,  but  that  is  no  fault 
of  mine  ;  I  am  now  expounding  the  views  of  this 
eminent  theologian :  that  I  have  accurately  inter¬ 
preted  Olshausen  the  following  quotation  will  show. 
“Though,  therefore,  in  virtue  of  his  attributes  of  om¬ 
niscience  and  omnipotence,  God  assuredly  both  fore¬ 
knows  who  they  are  that  will  resist  his  grace,  and 
causes  them  to  appear  in  definite  forms  in  history,  he 
knows  them  only  as  persons  who,  by  abuse  of  their 
own  free  will,  have  become  evil  and  continued  so.”  5 
It  is  fairly  certain,  therefore,  that  if  these  passages 


5  p.  92. 


304  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  CxOD’S  WORD 

do  not  teach  the  doctrine  that  God  foreknows  because 
he  first  determines,  then  it  is  not  taught  in  the  Bible. 
Such  passages  as  merely  speak  of  predestination  with¬ 
out  alluding  to  foreknowledge  (Eph.  i.  5,  11)  can 
not  be  held  as  of  more  importance  than  these  under 
consideration.  Rather  such  parts  of  Scripture  must 
be  interpreted  according  to  these,  for  the  absence  of  a 
term  by  no  means  proves  that  it  is  not  assumed. 
(Examine  the  views  of  Paul  and  James  concerning 
faith  and  works. ) 

Thus  we  see  that  this  doctrine  of  Calvinism  has  no 
foundation,  either  in  reason  or  in  Scripture.  So  far 
the  Arminian  is  satisfied.  For  the  sake  of  the  argu¬ 
ment  he  is  perfectly  willing  to  grant  that,  so  far  as 
these  passages  are  concerned,  the  fact  that  God  does 
foreknow  is  the  precise  thing  revealed.  Nay,  he  is 
even  willing  to  concede  that  Dr.  Hodge  is  correct  in 
saying  that  to  know  ‘  ‘  is  often  to  approve  and  love,  it 
may  express  the  idea  of  peculiar  affection  in  the  case  ; 
or  it  may  mean  to  select  or  determine  upon.”  All 
this  may,  or  may  not  be  so,  and  the  Arminian’s  posi¬ 
tion  remains  untouched.  For  this  simply  states  the 
fact  that  God  foreknows  or  loves  without  explaining 
why  he  loves.  But  advancing  a  step,  the  Arminian 
affirms  that  God’s  decrees  must  be  based  upon  his 
foreknowledge.  This  is  the  only  explanation  which 
will  consistently  harmonize  the  plain  statements  of 
Scripture,  not  only  with  themselves,  but  also  with  the 
fundamental  postulates  of  man’s  moral  nature. 

The  reader  has  seen  what  must  be  the  logical  con¬ 
clusion  if  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Calvinism  is 
accepted.  If  God  has  determined — irrespective  of 
what  men  will  freely  do  in  time— who  shall,  and  who 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE. 


305 


shall  not  be  saved,  then  surely  Christ  did  not  die  to 
save  all :  the  universal  invitations  of  God’s  Word  are 
sad,  perplexing  mockeries  ;  God’s  sincerity  can  not  be 
maintained,  and  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  just  rewards 
according  to  the  deeds  done  in  the  body  is  unequivo¬ 
cally  contradicted.  The  Arminian  contends  that  the 
clearly  revealed  must  be  the  interpreter  of  the  more 
obscure  parts  of  Scripture  ;  hence  so  far  as  the  decrees 
are  explained  it  must  be  on  the  basis  of  prescience. 

I  maintain  that  so  far  as  any  solution  is  accepted, 
the  mind  must  hold  to  that  view  which  presents  the 
least  difficulty  ;  this  is  true  in  the  realm  of  science  and 
should  be  in  that  of  theology.  I  shall  now  endeavor 
to  show  that  for  this  reason  the  Arminian  doctrine 
must  be  accepted.  Notice:  (1)  The  confession  of 
Pictet,  who  says,  “  ....  if  election  were  according 
to  faith  and  works  foreseen,  there  would  be  no  diffi¬ 
culty  in  answering  the  question  why  God  chooses  one 
and  not  another.  It  would  be  because  God  foresaw 
that  the  former  would  believe  and  that  the  latter  would 
remain  in  unbelief.” 

(2)  Olshausen  can  not  accept  the  Calvinistic  doc¬ 
trine  of  “ gratia  irresistibiles  ” — which  is  necessary 
to  the  system — because  it  ‘  ‘  necessarily  draws  after  it 
the  whole  doctrine  of  predestination,  with  its  most  ex¬ 
treme  consequences  ;  ”  again,  he  says  the  universality 
of  grace  must  be  held,  or  else  we  must  ‘‘attribute 
man’s  agency  in  resisting  grace  also  to  God,  in  the 
way  in  which  this  is  done  by  the  rigid  doctrine  of 
predestination  :  for  in  that  event  God  would  call  those 
who  were  not  elected  as  it  were  in  mockery,  only  to 
put  men  all  the  sooner  and  more  surely  to  confusion  ; 
a  representation  which  can  only  be  described  as  one 


306  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

of  the  most  remarkable  aberrations  which  the  human 
mind  has  ever  disclosed.”  Possibly  the  reader  is  of 
the  opinion  that  this  is  not  very  favorable  to  Cal¬ 
vinism.  The  following  from  Dr.  Kendrick  will  prob¬ 
ably  strengthen  the  supposition  : 

“  The  editor  deems  it  proper,  here,  once  for  all,  to 
state  his  dissent  from  Olshausen’s  explanation  of  the 
profound  questions  here  presented.  He  can  not  accept 
the  author’s  solution  of  the  relation  of  Divine  grace 
to  human  salvation.  He  does  not  believe  that  the 
turning  point  in  election  is  God’s  foreknowledge  of 
the  non  resistance  of  his  grace  on  the  part  of  the 
elect.  He  believes  that  there  is  no  antecedent  differ¬ 
ence  between  those  who  accept  the  grace  of  God  and 
those  who  reject  it.  Those  who  are  saved  are  sub¬ 
dued  by  the  power  (whether  called  irresistible  or  not) 
of  Divine  grace,  yet  without  any  infringement  of  their 
free  agency,  and  those  who  refuse  it  might  in  like 
manner,  with  precise^  the  same  ease  (as  in  every 
case  it  is  the  work  of  Omnipotence)  be  constrained, 
if  it  were  the  Divine  pleasure  to  do  so.”  6 

(3)  As  is  well  known,  Alford  is  so  very  fair  that 
at  times  he  ignores  the  analogy  of  faith  and  gives  what 
he  thinks  is  the  exact  meaning  of  the  passage.  Conse¬ 
quently,  while  quite  Calvinistic  in  Romans,  he  is  rather 
on  the  Arminian  ground  in  First  Timothy  :  hence, 
he  says  of  the  assertion  that  God  “  willeth  all  men  to 
be  saved  and  to  come  unto  the  certain  knowledge  of 
the  truth  ”  that  “On  this  even  God’s  predestination 
is  contingent.”  He  may  have  thought  that  divine 
predestination  is,  and  at  the  same  time,  is  not  contin¬ 
gent  concerning  the  same  thing.  But  this  involves  a 


6  Pages  80,  92,  133 


and  man’s  moral  nature:.  307 

logical  contradiction  :  therefore  I  believe  that  if  pre¬ 
destination  is  contingent  on  the  acceptance  of  salva¬ 
tion  which  is  sincerely  offered  to  all,  then  God  has 
not  first  determined  that  some  should  be  passed  by, 
irrespective  of  their  foreseen  actions. 

(4)  A  brief  consideration  of  Dr.  Moses  Stuart’s 
position  will  close  the  discussion.  As  previously 
stated  this  author  affirms  that  Rom.  viii.  29  does  not 
decide  whether  the  election  is  from  God’s  “  mere  good 
pleasure  or  from  a  foresight  of  their  faith  and  good 
works.”  Yet  he  thinks  the  question  is  settled  by 
other  texts  of  Scripture  that  the  merit  or  obedience  of 
the  “  elect  was  not  the  ground  or  reason  of  their  regen¬ 
eration  and  sanctification.  This  would  be  assuming 
that  holiness  existed  before  it  did  exist  ;  that  it  was 
the  ground  of  that  which  it  followed  only  as  a  conse¬ 
quence.”  7 

But  does  this  conclusion  legitimately  follow  from 
the  premises  ?  No,  certainly  not,  for  on  the  same  ba¬ 
sis  of  argument,  evil  may  be  said  to  have  existed 
before  it  did  exist.  As  though  a  foreseen  cause,  or 
reason  of  action  is  under  the  necessity  of  being  postu¬ 
lated  as  actually  existing.  The  very  same  argument 
will  apply  with  equal  force  to  the  non-elect.  If  the 
elect  are  not  foreseen  as  meeting  the  requirements  of 
the  gospel,  but  are  saved  by  God’s  mere  good  pleas¬ 
ure,  then  the  11011-elect  are  not  condemned  because  of 
their  foreseen  non-fulfillment  of  the  gospel  require¬ 
ment,  but  of  the  so-called,  mere  good  pleasure  of  God, 
which  entirely  overthrows  the  plain  teaching  of  the 
Bible. 

But  what  is  meant  by  the  phrase  God’s  good  pleas- 


7  Commentary,  p.  630. 


308  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

ure  ?  As  the  term  evSokicx  (eudokia )  is  used  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Paul’s  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  it  may 
signify  real  benevolence,  or  an  absolute  purpose  which 
must  be  considered  as  final.  I  do  not  care  which  of 
these  meanings  is  selected,  for  as  I  have  already  said, 
granting  that  election  is  according  to  the  Divine  Pur¬ 
pose — which  I  have  never  denied — yet  that  purpose  is 
according  to  knowledge,  or  humanly  speaking,  fore¬ 
knowledge.  I  lay  it  down  as  an  axiom  that  God’s 
good  pleasure  is  according  to  what  he  himself  has 
declared.  Consequently  it  can  never  be  legitimately 
construed  as  self-contradictory.  Dr.  Stuart  thinks 
that  it  should  be  interpreted  as  meaning  ‘  ‘  that  God 
has  done  this,  while  the  reasons  are  entirely  unknown 
to  us.”  But  that  this  is  not  so,  I  now  propose  to  show 
from  his  own  concessions.  Speaking  of  the  decretum 
absolutum,  the  determination  that  the  elect  “  should 
be  saved,  irrespectively  of  their  character  and  actions,” 
he  says,  “  one  can  not  well  see  how  this  is  to  be  made 
out.  So  much  must  be  true,  viz.,  that  they  are  not 
regenerated,  sanctified,  or  saved  on  account  of  merit : 
all  is  from  grace,  pure  grace.  If  this  be  all  that  any 
one  means  by  the  decretum  absolutum ,  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  objection  made  to  it.  But  on  the  other 
hand  ;  as  God  is  omniscient ,  and  therefore  must  know 
every  part  of  every  man’s  character,  through  all  stages 
of  his  being  ;  as  all  things,  in  their  fullest  extent, 
must  have  always  been  naked  and  open  to  his  view  ; 
so  we  can  not  once  imagine,  that  any  decree  or  pur¬ 
pose  in  respect  to  the  nXrjr oi  can  have  been  made  irre¬ 
spectively  of  their  whole  character.  Such  an  irrespec- 
tion  (if  I  may  use  the  word)  is  impossible.  God  has 
never  determined,  and  from  his  holy  nature  never  can 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  309 

determine  to  save  any  except  such  as  are  conformed  to 
the  image  of  his  Son.”  Then  according  to  Dr.  Stuart 
the  reasons  for  the  decree  to  save  the  elect  are  not 
“entirely  unknown  to  us.”  No,  by  no  means,  for  that 
decree  is  not  “made  irrespectively  of  their  whole 
character.  ’  ’ 

Now  if  this  language  means  anything  more  than 
the  usual  Calvinistic  terminology — that  God  foresees 
because  he  has  previously  determined — then  it  is 
strongly  tinctured  with  Arminianism.  But  the  matter 
is  susceptible  of  demonstration  beyond  all  reasonable 
questioning  :  he  says,  “  The  moment  we  admit  him 
to  bean  omniscient  and  omnipotent  God,  that  moment 
we  admit  that  he  must  have  foreseen  from  eternity  all 
the  actions  of  his  creatures,  all  their  thoughts  and 
affections  and  wishes  and  desires.  We  can  not  deny 
that  foreseeing  all  these  with  all  their  consequences, 
he  brought  them  into  being  and  placed  them  (for 
surely  it  was  he  who  ordered  their  lot)  in  circum¬ 
stances  where  he  knew  they  would  act  as  he  had 
foreseen  they  would.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  this, 
without  denying  the  omniscience  of  God,  and  his 
immutability.”  7  The  following  is  to  show  how  God 
may  have  an  eternal  purpose  and  yet  man  be  a  free 
agent.  ‘  ‘  Does  the  certain  knowledge  we  now  have 
of  a  past  event,  destroy  the  free  agency  of  those  who 
were  concerned  in  bringing  about  that  event  ?  Did  any 
previous  knowledge  of  the  same  necessarily  interfere 
with  their  free  agency  ?  And  as  to  free  agency  itself, 
can  not  God  make  a  creature  in  his  own  image,  free 
like  himself,  rational  like  himself,  the  originator  of 
thoughts  and  volitions  like  himself?  Can  this  be 


7  p-  635. 


310  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

disproved  ?  The  fact  that  we  are  dependent  beings, 
will  not  prove  that  we  may  not  be  free  agents  as 
to  the  exercise  of  the  powers  with  which  we  are 
endowed,  —  free  in  a  sense  like  to  that  in  which 
God  himself  as  a  rational  being,  is  free.  Nor  will 
this  establish  any  contingency  or  uncertainty  of 
events,  in  the  universe.  Could  not  God  as  well  fore¬ 
see  what  would  be  the  free  and  voluntary  thought  of 
men,  in  consequence  of  the  powers  which  he  should 
give  them,  as  he  could  foresee  thoughts  and  volitions 
which  would  proceed  from  the  operation  of  eternal 
causes  upon  them  ?  Until  this  can  be  denied  on  the 
ground  of  reason  and  argument,  the  sentiment  in 
question  is  not  justly  liable  to  the  charge  of  introduc¬ 
ing  the  doctrine  of  casual  contingency  or  uncer¬ 
tainty  into  the  plans  of  the  Divine  Mind.”  8 

With  the  exception  of  the  thought  concerning  the 
certainty  of  that  which  is  foreknown,  this  entire  para¬ 
graph  is  permeated  with  pure  Arminianism.  In  what 
sense  then  does  Dr.  Stuart  insist  that  the  foreseen  is 
certain  ?  Why,  manifestly  in  the  same  sense  as  I  have 
already  granted  when  considering  the  views  of  Rothe, 
viz.,  that  inasmuch  as  the  Divine  Foresight  can  not 
be  deceived  nor  mistaken,  of  all  the  possibilities,  God 
sees  that  which  will  be,  and  hence  to  say  that  it  is 
uncertain  is  to  affirm  that  that  which  will  be,  will 
or  may  not  be.  Any  other  interpretation  of  the  cer¬ 
tainty  would  necessarily  destroy  the  meaning  of  his 
previous  affirmation  that  we  are  created  in  God’s 
image,  free,  “rational  like  himself,  the  originator  of 
thoughts  and  volitions  like  himself.” 

At  this  point  I  am  willing  to  rest  the  case.  I  have 


8  p.  627. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  311 

shown  by  able  Calvinistic  and  independent  testimony, 
that  the  claim  of  the  Calvinist,  God  first  determines  and 
as  a  consequence  knows  who  are  to  be  saved,  is  not 
legitimately  deduced  from  Scripture.  I  have  shown 
that  Arminianism  is  the  more  rational  and  Scriptural 
explanation  and  as  such  must  be  accepted.  Lastly,  I 
have  shown  that  Calvinisms  themselves,  when  fully 
explaining  their  system  either  assume  or  boldly  affirm 
the  Divine  Foresight  as  prior  to  his  decrees. 


note  1. 

Meyer’s  position  is  somewhat  peculiar  ;  he  says, 

“  The  contents  of  ix.  6-29  as  they  have  been  unfolded 

by  pure  exegesis,  certainly  exclude,  when  taken  in  and 

by  themselves,  the  idea  of  a  decree  of  God  conditioned 

by  human  moral  self-activity,  as  indeed  God’s  absolute 

#  • 

activity  taken  as  such  by  itself  can  not  depend  on  that 
of  the  individual.  O11  the  other  hand,  a  fatalistic 
determinism,  the  ‘  tremendum  mysterium  ’  of  Calvin, 
which,  following  the  precedent  of  Augustine,  robs 
man  of  his  self-determination  and  free  personal  attitude 
towards  salvation,  and  makes  him  the  passive  object 
of  divine  sovereign  will,  may  just  as  little  be  derived 
as  a  Pauline  doctrine  from  our  passage.  It  can  not  be 
so,  because  our  passage  is  not  to  be  considered  as 
detached  from  the  following  (vs.  30-33,  chap.  x.  xi.)  ; 
and  because,  generally,  the  countless  exhortations  of 
the  apostle  to  obedience  of  faith,  to  steadfastness  of 
faith  and  Christian  virtue,  as  well  as  his  admonitions 
on  the  possibility  of  losing  salvation,  and  his  warnings 


312  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

against  falling  from  grace,  are  just  so  many  evidences 
against  that  view,  which  puts  aside  the  divine  will  of 
love,  and  does  away  the  essence  of  human  morality 
and  responsibility  :  ”  his  view  is  this:  “As  often  as 
we  treat  only  one  of  the  two  truths  ;  ‘  God  is  absolutely 
free,  and  all  efficient,’  and  ‘  Man  has  moral  freedom, 
and  is,  in  virtue  of  his  proper  self-determination  and 
responsibility,  as  liberum  agens ,  the  author  of  his  sal¬ 
vation  or  perdition,’  and  carry  it  out  in  a  consistent 
theory,  and  therefore  in  a  one-sided  method,  we  are 
compelled  to  speak  i:i  such  a  manner  that  the  other 
truth  appears  to  be  annulled — only  appears  however  ; 
for,  in  fact,  all  that  takes  place  in  this  case  is  a  tempo¬ 
rary  and  conscious  withdrawing  of  attention  from  the 
other.  In  the  present  instance  Paul  found  himself  in 
this  case,  and  he  expresses  himself  according  to  this 
mode  of  view,  not  merely  in  a  passing  reference,  vs.  20, 
21,  but  in  the  whole  reasoning,  6-29.’’  After  this 
passage  has  been  disclosed,  Meyer  thinks  that  Paul 
“  allows  the  claims  of  both'  modes  of  consideration  to 
stand  side  by  side,  just  as  they  exist  side  by  side 
within  the  limits  of  human  thought.  ’  ’  9 

note  11. 

The  American  Edition  of  Tange’s  Commentary  is 
so  voluminous  that  it  is  difficult  to  convey  its  position 
to  the  reader  without  numerous  citations  ;  hence,  I 
have  thought  best  to  present  the  views  of  this  Calvin- 
istic  authority  in  the  form  of  a  Note. 

Dr.  Tange  maintains  that  “the  passage  in  vs.  29 
and  30  contains  the  whole  Divine  plan  of  salvation, 


9  Pages  166-169. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


313 


from  the  first  foundation  to  the  ultimate  object.”  He 
regards  the  passage  in  Ephesians  i.  4-14  as  substan¬ 
tially  agreeing  with,  and  as  illustrating  the  present 
passage.  He  says,  ‘  ‘  As  the  foreknowing  here  pre¬ 
cedes  the  predestinating,  so  there  the  choosing  (v.  4) 
precedes  the  predestinating  (v.  5);  from  which  it 
follows  that  both  the  foreknowing  and  the  electing 
mean  essentially  the  same  thing — an  act  preceding  the 

predestination . We  may  further  observe,  that 

a  real  difference  exists  between  election  and  foreordi¬ 
nation,  or  predestination,  and  that  the  Ttpoyivoo6uEiy 
can  not  possibly  mean  foreknowledge,  in  God’s  idea, 
of  subjects  already  present  (for  whence  would  they 
have  come  into  God’s  idea  ?)  but  that  it  can  only  mean 
the  loving  and  creative  sight,  in  God’s  intuitive  vis¬ 
ion,  of  human  personalities  for  a  preliminary  ideal  ex¬ 
istence.  The  doctrine  of  predestination  of  Augustine, 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  of  the  Reformers,  could  not 
reach  this  idea  of  election  intellectually  (Christian 
faith  has  always  reached  it  in  spirit),  because  the  dis¬ 
tinction  between  the  idea  of  the  individual  personality 
of  man  and  the  idea  of  the  ‘specimen  of  every  kind’ 
had  not  yet  been  definitely  attained.  It  is  now  clear 
that  such  a  ‘  foreknowing  ’  of  God  in  relation  to  all 
human  individuals  must  be  accepted,  because  man  is 
an  individual  thought  of  God  :  and  that  the  same 
must  hold  good  of  electing  in  so  far  as  each  individual 
is  distinct  in  his  solitary  separation  from  all  other  in¬ 
dividuals  and  has  a  solitary  call  (see  Rev.  ii.  17). 
But  it  follows  from  this  that  the  foreknowing  of  the 
‘  elect,’  when  it  has  become  manifest,  must  be  accepted 
in  the  most  emphatic  sense,  analogously  to  the  fact 
that  Abraham  is,  in  God’s  typical  kingdom,  the  elect 


314  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

hcxt  eqoxr/v,  aiid  that  Christ  is  the  elect  in  God’s 
real  kingdom  in  the  absolute  sense,  so  that  all 
his  followers  are  chosen  together  with  hitn  as 
organic  members,  according  to  their  organic  rela¬ 
tions  (Eph.  i.).  From  both  propositions  it  follows, 
further,  that  election  does  not  constitute  an  infinite 
opposition  between  such  as  are  ordained  to  salvation 
and  such  as  are  ordained  to  condemnation,  but  an 
infinite  difference  of  destinations  for  glory  :  which 
difference,  however,  can  be  the  basis  of  an  actual 
opposition  (see  Matt.  xxv.  24),  and  therefore  is  also 
combined  with  this.  As  the  foreknowing  expresses 
the  collective  foundation,  the  Godlike  spiritual  nature 
of  the  elect  as  the  product  and  object  of  Divine  love, 
there  is  comprised  in  the  electing  not  only  their  elec¬ 
tion  from  the  mass  of  the  world,  but  also  the  distin¬ 
guishing  features  of  their  xaptd/nara  and  character. 

.  .  .  .  The  Apostle  says  four  times,  and  rovrovt 
three  times.  After  the  ideal  determinations  of  per¬ 
sonalities  themselves,  there  can  now  follow  the  pre¬ 
destination  of  their  opo?  in  time  and  space,  their 
whole  lot  (including  the  previously  determined  per¬ 
mission  and  control  of  the  fall).  For  the  foundation 
of  the  world  corresponds  to  the  history  of  the  world. 
But  the  fate  of  each  individual  is  designed  to  mature 
him  under  gratia  prceveniens ,  for  conversion,  and 
when  this  object  is  reached,  it  is  his  turn  :  he  is 
TEzayjiEvo <s  (x\cts  xiii.  48).” 

While  Dr.  Riddle  regards  “these  Notes  of  Dr. 
Range  ”  as  very  just  and  especially  valuable  “for 
minds  trained  in  the  school  of  hyper- Calvinism,”  still 
he  thinks  the  problem  has  not  been  solved.  “  The 
Apostle  himself  does  not  do  it  ;  ”  again  :  commenting 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


315 


on  Lange’s  notes  concerning  the  clause — “  Even  for 
this  very  purpose  have  I  raised  thee  up,”  Dr.  Riddle 
says,  “  While  we  must  utterly  reject,  both  on  lexical 
and  theological  grounds,  the  extreme  supralapsarian 
view  :  God  created  thee ,  i.  <?. ,  as  a  hardened  sinner  ;  the 
view  of  Lange  and  many  modern  interpreters  is  too 
weak — is  out  of  keeping  both  with  the  original  tran¬ 
saction  and  the  use  here  made  of  it,” 

For  the  sake  of  brevity  I  will  now  ask  a  few  leading 
questions,  allowing  Doctors  Lange,  Riddle  and  Schaff 
to  answer  for  themselves. 

(1)  Is  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination 
Scripturally  true?  “This  passage  (Rom.  ix.  18)  if 
taken  out  of  its  connection,  seems  to  declare  an  abso¬ 
lute  predestination  in  the  supralapsarian  sense.” 
— Lange. 

On  the  previous  verse,  Dr.  Riddle  says,  as  we  have 
previously  seen,  “  We  must  utterly  reject,  both  on  lex¬ 
ical  and  theological  grounds,  the  extreme  supralap¬ 
sarian  view:  God  created  thee,  i.  e.}  as  a  hardened 
sinner.”  After  having  spoken  adversely  concerning 
Arminian  expositors,  Dr.  Schaff  says,  “Yet  we  must 
guard  against  the  opposite  extreme  of  supralapsarian- 
ism,  which  with  fearful  logical  consistency,  makes 
God  the  author  of  the  fall  of  Adam,  hence  of  sin  : 
thus  really  denying  both  God’s  holiness  and  love  and 
man’s  accountability,  to  the  ultimate  extinguishment 
of  all  morality.  Many,  indeed,  have  held  this  view, 
whose  lives,  by  a  happy  inconsistency,  were  far  better 
than  their  theories.  They  arrived  at  this  extreme 
position  through  a  one-sided  explanation  of  this  pas¬ 
sage,  and  through  the  logical  consequence  of  their 
conception  of  God’s  all-determining  will.  But  if  we 


31 6  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

would  not  have  the  Bible  prove  anything  man  wishes, 
we  must  interpret  single  passages  in  their  connection 
with  the  whole,  and  according  to  the  analogy  of 
faith.”  1 

(2)  In  what  sense  is  it  true  that  God  hardened  the 

heart  of  Pharaoh?  ‘‘It  is  plain,  to  one  acquainted 
with  the  Scriptures,  that  God’s  hardening  of  Pharaoh 
resulted  from  Pharaoh’s  having  hardened  himself  ;  and 
besides  this,  there  is  connected  with  this  the  additional 
fact,  that,  even  though  Pharaoh  was  ripe  for  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  destruction,  God  makes  the  useless  man  still 
useful  by  allowing  him  to  exist  longer,  and  by  raising 
him  up,  in  order,  through  him,  to  declare  his  power 
and  his  mercy.” — Lange.  The  following  Dr.  Riddle 
approvingly  quotes  from  Dr.  Schaff :  ‘  ‘  All  events  of 

history,  even  all  wicked  deeds,  stand  under  the  guid¬ 
ance  of  God,  without  whose  will  not  a  hair  falls  from 
our  heads,  much  less  is  a  world-historical  fact  accom¬ 
plished.  God  does  not  cause  the  evil,  but  he  bends 
and  guides  it  to  his  glory.”  2 

(3)  Is  God’s  decree  of  reprobation  conditional  ? 
If  so,  upon  what  is  it  conditioned  ?  Commenting  on 
Rom.  ix.  18,  Lange  says,  “  Previously,  the  question 
was,  God’s  purposes  preceding  the  birth  of  the  chil¬ 
dren  ;  here,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  the  free  will  with 
which  God  dealt  with  fixed  character — Moses,  on  the 
one  hand,  Pharaoh  on  the  other.  If  this  free  will  be 
referred  to  a  purpose  of  God,  it  is  nevertheless  not  the 
purpose  of  election,  which  first  settles  personality,  but 
the  purpose  of  ordination,  which,  in  the  establishment 
of  its  destiny,  presupposes  its  conduct.  Consequently, 


1  p.  329 

2  Pages  319,  315. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  317 

because  this  purpose  is  conditional,  God  is  still  left 
free  to  have  mercy  on  the  real  Moses,  just  as  he  is  free 
to  harden  the  still  existing  Pharaoh.”  “  While  human 
goodness  is  the  effect  of  Divine  love  and  grace,  on  the 
contrary,  human  wickedness  is  the  cause  of  Divine 
hatred  and  abhorrence  ;  and  on  that  account  alone  can 
it  be  the  object  of  the  punitive  wrath  and  condemna¬ 
tory  decree  of  God.  Were  evil  the  effect  of  his  own 
agency,  he  would  be  obliged  to  condemn  himself — 
which  is  irrational  and  blasphemous.” — Schaff. 

This  eminent  scholar  so  emphatically  repudiates 
one-half  of  Calvinism,  that  fairness  demands  a  fuller 
elucidation  of  his  views  :  ‘  *  The  hate  of  God  toward 
Ksau  and  his  race  can  not  be  sundered  from  their 
evil  life,  their  obduracy  against  God  and  enmity  to  his 
people.  It  is  true,  verse  1 1  (with  which,  however,  verse 
13  does  not  stand  so  closely  connected  as  verse  12) 
seems  to  represent  not  only  the  love  of  God,  but  his 
hatred  as  transferred  even  into  the  mother’s  womb. 
But  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that,  to  the  omniscient 
One,  there  is  no  distinction  of  time,  and  all  the  future 
is  to  him  present.  Besides,  an  essential  distinction 
must  be  made  between  the  relation  of  God  to  good 
and  evil,  to  avoid  unscriptural  error.  God  loves  the 
good,  because  he  produces  the  very  good  that  is  in  them  : 
and  he  elects  them,  not  on  account  of  their  faith  and 
their  holiness,  but  to  faith  and  holiness.  But  it  can  not 
be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  hates  the  evil  men 
because  he  produces  the  very  evil  that  is  in  them  ; 
for  that  would  be  absurd,  and  destroy  his  holiness.” 
Again  he  says,  ‘  ‘  There  is  an  eternal  predestination  of 
believers  unto  holiness  and  blessedness,  and  hence 
they  must  ascribe  all  the  glory  of  their  redemption, 


31 8  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

from  beginning  to  end,  to  the  unmerited  grace  of  God 

alone .  There  is  no  Divine  foreordination  of 

sin  as  sin,  although  he  has  foreseen  it  from  all  eternity, 
and  with  respect  to  redemption,  permitted  it.  while 
constantly  overruling  it  to  his  purposes.  Hence, 
those  who  are  lost  are  lost  through  their  own  fault, 
and  must  blame  their  own  unbelief,  which  rejects  the 
means  of  salvation  proffered  them  by  God.” 

Dr.  Riddle  remarks,  “  That  these  positions  are  not 
reconcilable  by  human  logic  is  evident  from  the  dis¬ 
cussions  on  the  subject  ;  but  this  can  not  of  itself, 
disprove  their  truth.  It  is  the  old  and  ever- recurring 
mystery  of  the  origin  of  evil.”  3 


3  p.  329. 


PART  III. 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  MAN’S  MORAL 

NATURE. 

“There  are  within  us  certain  moral  instincts  that 
are  as  valuable  as  anything  that  the  Bible  can  teach 
us  ;  in  fact,  instincts  of  such  a  character  that  without 
them,  no  teachings  of  the  Bible  would  be  of  any  value. 
The  Bible  was  made  for  man,  not  man  for  the  Bible. 
These  instincts  are  older  than  the  Bible.  These  in¬ 
stincts  are  as  divine  as  the  Bible  :  as  much  God’s  own 
workmanship  as  the  Bible,  and  the  meaning  of  the 
Bible  when  there  is  any  possible  question  of  interpre¬ 
tation,  is  to  be  tested  by  them.” 

— Rev.  C.  H.  Parkhurst ,  D.  D. 


PART  III. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Calvinism  Makes  God  the  Author  of  Sin. 

This  is  a  serious  charge  to  bring  against  any  system 
of  thought.  But  in  this  instance  the  seriousness  of 
the  indictment  is  greatly  augmented  because  Calvinism 
claims  to  be  the  true  Theology  which  is  consistently 
taught  in  the  Divine  Revelation. 

Throughout  Part  II.  the  reader  has  had  ample 
opportunity  to  test  this  claim.  He  has  seen  that  Cal¬ 
vinism  not  only  denies  its  own  assertions  but  also  the 
clearly  revealed  and  most  emphatic  declarations  of 
God’s  Word.  He  has  observed  that  even  in  the  pro¬ 
found — and  to  many,  inexplicable — subject  of  Divine 
Foreknowledge,  the  Calvinist  has  not  the  Scriptural 
verification  so  often  and  confidently  claimed.  In  the 
remainder  of  this  discussion  I  shall  attempt  to  show 
that  the  Bible  and  man’s  moral  nature  speak  the  same 
language. 


SECTION  i. 

No  Absolute  Evil  in  the  Universe. 

The  following  from  Dr.  Wm,  Bates  and  quoted  ap¬ 
provingly  by  Dr.  Samuel  Hopkins  shows  how  God 
and  sin  are  related.  “Sin,  in  its  own  nature,  hath  no 
tendency  to  good,  it  is  not  an  apt  medium,  hath  no 

proper  efficacy  to  promote  the  glory  of  God  ;  so  far 

321 


322  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

is  it  from  a  direct  contributing  to  it,  that,  on  the  con¬ 
trary  it  is  most  real  dishonor  to  him.  But  as  a  black 
ground  in  a  picture,  which  in  itself  only  defiles,  when 
placed  by  art,  sets  off  the  brighter  colors  and  brightens 
their  beauty,  so  the  evil  of  sin,  which  considered  abso¬ 
lutely,  obscures  the  glory  of  God,  yet,  by  the  over¬ 
ruling  disposition  of  his  providence,  it  serves  to  illus¬ 
trate  his  name,  and  makes  it  more  glorious  in  the 
esteem  of  creatures.  Without  the  sin  of  man,  there 
had  been  no  place  for  the  most  perfect  exercise  of  his 
goodness.”  1 

Following  this  Dr.  Hopkins  says:  “There  can 
nothing  take  place  under  the  care  and  government  of 
an  infinitely  powerful,  wise  and  good  Being  that  is 
not  on  the  whole  wisest  and  best ;  that  is,  for  the  gen¬ 
eral  good  ;  therefore,  though  there  be  things  which  are 
in  themselves  evil,  even  in  their  own  nature  and  ten¬ 
dency,  such  as  sin  and  misery  ;  yet,  considered  in 
their  connection  with  the  wdiole  and  as  they  are  neces¬ 
sary  in  the  best  system  to  accomplish  the  greatest 
good,  the  most  important  and  best  ends,  they  are  in 
this  view  desirable  good,  and  not  evil.  And  in  this 
view  ‘  there  is  no  absolute  evil  in  the  universe.’  There 
are  evils  in  themselves  considered,  but  considered  as 
connected  with  the  whole,  they  are  not  evil  but 
good.”  2 

This  reminds  us  of  Pope’s  couplet 

“All  discord,  harmony,  not  understood  ; 

All  partial  evil,  universal  good  :  ” 

and  of  Carlyle’s  famous  words  that  we  are  “  to  look 
on  sin  and  crime  as  not  hindrances,  but  to  honor  and 


1  “  Harmony  of  the  Divine  Attributes.”  3d.  Edition,  p.  81. 

2  "Works.”  Vol.  I.,  p.  92. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


323 


love  them  as  furtherances  of  what  is  holy.”  Doubt¬ 
less  Dr.  Hopkins  would  have  indignantly  denied  the 
charge  of  pantheism,  but  beyond  all  controversy  his 
thought  is  permeated  with  its  spirit.  As  such  it  has 
its  complete  denial  in  the  words  of  the  prophet  Isaiah, 
“Woe  unto  them  that  call  evil  good,  and  good  evil  ; 
that  put  darkness  for  light,  and  light  for  darkness : 
that  put  bitter  for  sweet,  and  sweet  for  bitter  ”  ( v.  20). 

SECTION  11. 

God  the  Efficient  Cause  of  Sin. 

Det  us  continue  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Hopkins  :  he 
says,”  God  does  superintend  and  direct  with  regard  to 
every  instance  of  sin.  He  orders  how  much  sin  there 
shall  be,  and  effectually  restrains  and  prevents  all  that 
which  he  would  not  have  take  place.  Men  are,  with 
respect  to  this,  absolutely  under  his  direction  and  con¬ 
trol.”  From  this  he  proceeds  to  show  that  sin  could 
not  have  originated  in  the  creature,  for  why  should  the 
will  put  forth  a  volition  contrary  to  the  divinely  consti¬ 
tuted  nature  ?  Nor  can  it  be  in  the  sin  itself,  for  upon 
that  supposition  the  effect  is  its  own  cause,  hence  we 
must  look  to  Him  who  is  the  First  Cause  of  everything; 
speaking  of  the  sinner  he  says,”  Something  must  have 
taken  place  previous  to  his  sin,  and  in  which  the  sin¬ 
ner  had  no  hand  with  which  his  sin  was  so  connected 
as  to  render  it  certain  that  sin  would  take  place  just 
as  it  does  ;  ”  his  conclusion  is,  ”  Moral  evil  could  not 
exist  unless  it  were  the  will  of  God,  and  his  choice 
that  it  should  exist  rather  than  not.  And  from  this  it 
is  certain  that  it  is  wisest  and  best  in  his  view  that  sin 
should  exist.  And  in  thus  willing  what  was  wisest 


324  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

and  best,  and  foreordaining  that  it  should  come  to  pass, 
God  exercised  his  wisdom  and  goodness  ;  and  in  this 
view  and  sense  is  really  the  origin  and  cause  of  moral 
evil,  as  really  as  he  is  of  the  existence  of  anything  that 
he  wills,  however  inconceivable  the  mode  and  manner 
of  the  origin  and  existence  of  this  event  may  be,  and 
however  different  from  that  of  any  other.”  3 

Of  Pharaoh,  Dr.  Nathanael  Emmons  says  God 
“determined,  therefore,  to  operate  on  his  heart  itself 
and  cause  him  to  put  forth  certain  evil  exercises  in 
the  view  of  certain  external  motives”;  again,  “If 
saints  can  work  out  their  salvation,  under  a  positive 
influence  of  the  Deity,  then  sinners  can  work  out  their 
own  destruction  under  his  positive  influence.”  Of 
Adam  he  says,  “  His  first  sin  was  a  free,  voluntary 
exercise,  produced  by  a  divine  operation  in  the  view 
of  motives.” 

Meeting  an  objection  which  was,  and  even  now  is 
popular  with  a  certain  class  of  Calvinists,  Emmons 
says,  “  Many  are  disposed  to  make  a  distinction  here, 
and  to  ascribe  only  the  good  actions  of  men  to  the 
divine  agency,  while  they  ascribe  their  bad  ones  to  the 
divine  permission.  But  there  appears  no  ground  for 
this  distinction  in  Scripture  or  reason.  Men  are  no 
more  capable  of  acting  independently  of  God  in  one 
instance  than  in  another.  If  they  need  any  kind  or 
degree  of  divine  agency  in  doing  good,  they  need  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  kind  and  degree  of  divine  agency  in 
doing  evil.  This  is  the  dictate  of  reason  and  the 
Scripture  says  the  same.”  4 

Dr.  H.  B.  Smith  says  of  Emmons,  “  The  absolute, 


3  Pages  9S- 109. 

*  “  Works.”  Vol.  II.,  pp.  392,  420,  423,  441. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


325 


supreme,  irresistible,  all-embracing,  all-producing,  all- 
sustaining  energy  of  the  divine  will,  making  every 
event  and  act  march  to  the  music  of  the  divine  glory 
is  unquestionably  the  predominant  idea  of  this  most 
‘  consistent  ’  of  Calvinists.  ’  ’  Doubtless  this  is  ‘  ‘  simple’  ’ 
and  comprehensive,  yet  “  it  is  a  very  mechanical  and 
arbitrary  hypothesis.”  5 

Calvin  says,  “  If  God  merely  foresaw  human  events, 
and  did  not  also  arrange  and  dispose  of  them  at  his 
pleasure,  there  might  be  room  for  agitating  the  ques¬ 
tion,  how  far  this  foreknowledge  amounts  to  necessity  ; 
but  since  he  foresees  the  things  which  are  to  happen 
simply  because  he  has  decreed  that  they  are  so  to 
happen,  it  is  vain  to  debate  about  orescience  while  it 
is  clear  that  all  events  take  place  by  his  sovereign 
appointment.”  0 

In  Melancthon’s  commentary  on  Romans  of  1525, 
we  are  taught  that  “  God  wrought  all  things,  evil  as 
well  as  good  ;  that  he  was  the  author  of  David’s  adul¬ 
tery,  and  the  treason  of  Judas,  as  well  as  of  Paul’s 
conversion.”  7 


SECTION  III. 

The  Infra  or  Sublapsarians  declare  that  the  Views  of 
the  Supralapsarians  legitimately  7nake  God  the  Author 
of  Sin. 

Noticing  this  charge,  Dr.  John  Dick  says,  “lac- 
knowledge  that  this  horrible  inference  seems  to  be 
naturally  deduced  from  the  Supralapsarian  scheme, 
which  represents  the  introduction  of  sin  as  the  ap- 

5  “Faith  and  Philosophy,”  pp.  226,  227. 

6  “  Inst.”  B.  III.,  Ch.  XXIII.,  Sec.  6. 

^  Bledsoe’s  “  Theodicy,”  p.  91 


326  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  LAW 

pointed  means  of  executing  the  purpose  of  the  Almighty 
respecting  the  final  doom  of  his  creatures;”  again, 
“  There  is  something  in  this  system  repugnant  to  our 
ideas  of  the  character  of  God,  whom  it  represents 
rather  as  a  despot  than  the  Father  of  the  universe.”  8 

Venema  testifies  as  follows  :  “  The  Supralapsarian 

system  has  no  foundation  to  rest  upon . Their 

whole  system  is  completely  irreconcilable  with  the 
justice  of  God.  Nay,  it  is  in  direct  opposition  to  that 
justice  which  demands  that  when  punishment  is  ex¬ 
acted,  or  when  any  one  is  destined  to  destruction, 
there  be  a  reason  founded  in  equity  for  adopting  such 

a  course . But  how  inconsistent  is  it  with  his 

justice  thus  arbitrarily  to  appoint  men  to  such  an  end, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  it  into  effect  to  decree 
their  fall.”  9 

Isaac  Watts  says,  “The  doctrine  of  reprobation, 
in  the  most  severe  and  absolute  sense  of  it,  stands  in 
a  direct  contradiction  to  all  our  notions  of  kindness 
and  love  to  others,  in  which  the  blessed  God  is  set 
forth  as  our  example,  that  our  reason  can  not  tell  how 
to  receive  it.”  1 

In  previous  pages  the  reader  has  been  informed  of 
Dr.  Schaff’s  view  :  but  for  emphasis  I  will  here  repro¬ 
duce  a  few  words  :  he  says,  “  Supralapsarianism  .  .  .  . 
with  fearful  logical  consistency,  makes  God  the  author 
of  the  fall  of  Adam,  hence  of  sin.”  2 

Dr.  Hodge  opposes  this  scheme  because  “it  is  not 
consistent  with  the  Scriptural  exhibition  of  the  char¬ 
acter  of  God.  He  is  declared  to  be  a  God  of  mercy 

«  “Lectures,”  pp.  373,  369. 

9  “  Institutes,”  pp.  310,  311,  312. 

1  “  Works.”  Vol.  III.,  p.  476. 

2  Lange’s  “  Romans,”  p.  329. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  327 

and  justice.  But  it  is  not  compatible  with  these 
divine  attributes  that  men  should  be  foreordained  to 
misery  and  eternal  death  as  innocent,  that  is,  before 
they  had  apostatized  from  God.”  3 

In  concluding  this  section,  the  reader’s  serious  con¬ 
sideration  is  invited  to  this  clearly  established  fact,  viz., 
that  one  class  of  Calvinists  is  charged  by  another  class 
with  holding  views  which  legitimately  make  God  the 
author  of  sin.  As  we  continue  our  investigation,  we 
shall  be  reminded  of  David’s  exclamation,  “Behold, 
how  good  and  how  pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell 
together  in  unity.”  Possibly  we  shall  see  that  fulfill¬ 
ment  of  the  Saviour’s  words,  ‘  ‘  Every  kingdom  divided 
against  itself,  is  brought  to  desolation,  and  every  city 
or  house  divided  against  itself,  shall  not  stand” 
(Matt.  xii.  25). 


SECTION  IV. 

How  Some  Calvinists  Show  that  God  is  ?iot  the  Author 

of  Sin. 

Dr.  Griffin  is  more  cautious  than  Emmons  and  Hop¬ 
kins  ;  while  he  earnestly  advocates  the  doctrine  of 
Divine  Efficiency,  he  is  quite  guarded  in  his  expres¬ 
sions  concerning  God’s  relation  to  sin.  He  thinks  the 
Deity  ‘  ‘  has  the  absolute  control  of  mind  in  all  its 
common  operations,”  but  does  not  inform  us  of  the 
method.  “  Whether  he  does  this  by  the  mere  force  of 
motives  adapted  to  the  existing  temper,  or  sometimes 
by  a  lower  sort  of  efficiency,  not  however  productive 
of  sin,  I  will  not  determine.”  So  far  Dr.  Griffin  can 
not  be  said  to  teach,  directly  or  indirectly,  that  God  is 


3  “  Theology,”  Vol.  II.,  p.  319 


328  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  LAW 

the  author  of  sin.  But  in  my  opinion  such  is  not  the 
case  when  he  is  explaining  how  sinless  creatures  are 
induced  to  do  wrong.  This  is  worthy  of  careful  atten¬ 
tion.  “  If  sinless  creatures  are  not  dependent  on  God 
for  holiness,  how  will  you  account  for  the  fall  of  any  ?  ” 
After  quoting  from  Whitby  to  the  effect  that  the  great¬ 
est  good  proposed,  or  the  greatest  evil  threatened,  when 
equally  believed  and  reflected  on,  will  always  move  the 
will  to  accept  or  refuse,  he  says,  “Thus  while  the 
heart  is  right  and  the  mind  free,  proper  motives,  set 
clearly  before  the  understanding,  will  certainly  awaken 
right  affections.  And  temptations  to  sin  while  the 

heart  is  right,  will  instantly  be  rejected . How 

then  can  a  holy  being  apostatize  ?  Not  until  the  heart 
ceases  to  be  inclined  to  fall  in  with  the  motive  which 
moved  it  before.  That  cessation  can  not  be  produced 
by  good  motives,  and  before  it  takes  place  bad  motives 
can  not  operate.  It  can  not,  therefore,  be  the  effect  of 
motives.  It  must  result  from  some  influence,  or  some 
withdrawment  of  influence,  behind  the  scene.  If  it 
results  from  a  positive  influence,  God  must  be  the 
efficient  cause  of  sin  ;  if  it  results  from  the  withdraw¬ 
ment  of  an  influence,  the  influence  withdrawn  was 
that  which  before  inclined  the  heart  to  holy  action  ; 
and  that  is  the  very  efficiency  for  which  we  plead. 
Without  resorting  to  efficiency  and  its  withdrawment, 
how  can  we  account  for  the  fall  of  holy  beings  ?  ’  ’ 4 
Here  is  undersigned  testimony  as  to  the  legitimate 
tendency  of  Emmons’  theology.  Dr.  Griffin  concedes 
that  God  must  be  the  efficient  cause  of  sin  if  he  exerts 
a  positive  influence.  His  own  view  is  but  a  step  re¬ 
moved  from  that  of  Emmons,  for  he  maintains  that 


4  “  Divine  Efficiency,”  pp.  95,  167,  168. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


329 


the  creature  could  not  possibly  sin  were  it  not  for  the 
divine  withdrawment. 

This  is  a  bold  position.  Dr.  Griffin  does  not  even 
pretend  that  this  withdrawment  is  because  of  any¬ 
thing  evil  in  the  creature.  Nay,  he  most  emphati¬ 
cally  declares  that  without  this  withdrawment  the 
creature  can  not  possibly  sin.  Why  then,  should  God 
withdraw  his  influence  ?  Clearly  for  no  other  reason 
than  that  he  desires  sin.  This,  it  must  be  confessed, 
solves  the  mysterious  problem  of  the  existence  of  sin. 
But  what  a  solution  !  God  could  have  prevented  every 
creature  from  sinning.  Nay,  there  was  not  the  least 
danger  that  any  soul  would  have  sinned  had  this  di¬ 
vine  influence  been  continued.  Hence,  that  sin  may 
come,  that  this  earth  may  be  made  as  much  the  home 
of  Satan  as  is  possible,  this  eminent  theologian  con¬ 
ceives  God  as  withdrawing  the  plank  on  which  his 
child  is  standing,  so  that  he  may  fall  into  the  clutches 
of  the  arch  enemy.  Why  is  this  not  blasphemy? 
Why  does  it  not  make  God  the  author  of  sin  ?  Be¬ 
cause  it  is  theology.  Because  the  Calvinist  claims — 
as  I  shall  show  in  due  time — that  God  can  do  any¬ 
thing,  and  no  man  dare  say,  This  is  wrong.  In  the 
same  circumstances  a  man  would  be  arrested  and  tried 
for  murder. 

Det  us  now  see  how  Toplady  avoids  the  difficulty. 
“  It  is  a  known  and  very  just  maxim  of  the  schools, 
effedus  seqidtur  causam  proximam.  ‘  An  effect  follows 
from  and  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  last  immediate  cause 
that  produced  it.’  Thus,  for  instance,  if  I  hold  a 
book,  ora  stone  in  my  hand,  my  holding  it  is  the  im¬ 
mediate  cause  of  its  not  falling  ;  but  if  I  let  go,  my 
letting  go  is  not  the  immediate  cause  of  its  falling  ;  it 


330  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

is  carried  downward  by  its  own  gravity,  which  is, 
therefore,  the  causa  proxima  effedus,  the  proper  and 
immediate  cause  of  its  descent.  It  is  true,  if  I  had 
kept  my  hold  of  it,  it  would  not  have  fallen  ;  yet,  still 
the  immediate,  direct  cause  of  its  fall  is  its  own 
weight,  not  my  quitting  my  hold.  The  application 
of  this  to  the  providence  of  God  as  concerned  in  sin¬ 
ful  events  is  easy.  Without  God  there  could  have 
been  no  creation  ;  without  creation,  no  creatures  ;  with¬ 
out  creatures,  no  sin.  Yet  is  not  sin  chargeable  on 
God,  for  effedus  sequitur  causam proximam .  ”  5 

A  man  enters  your  room  at  midnight :  stealthily 
approaching  your  bedside  he  holds  a  keen  blade  di¬ 
rectly  over  your  heart.  Carefully  measuring  the  dis¬ 
tance,  calmly  calculating  on  the  law  of  gravity,  with¬ 
out  giving  the  knife  the  least  momemtum,  he  finally 
yields  his  grasp,  and  his  purpose  is  accomplished. 
As  he  walks  away  in  the  darkness,  a  feeling  of  awe 
comes  over  him  :  his  conscience  is  at  work  :  it  is  say¬ 
ing,  You  are  a  murderer,  you  are  a  murderer.  Star¬ 
tled  by  this  bold  accusation,  he  cries  out,  Who  says 
that  ?  It  is  a  lie.  I  did  not  kill  him  ;  for  effedus  se¬ 
quitur  proximam."  With  this  eminently  truthful  and 
consistent  remark  he  retires  to  his  virtuous  couch,  and 
is  soon  lost  in  the  sleep  of  innocence. 

Moreover,  I  fail  to  see  the  logical  force  of  Toplady’s 
assertion,  “Without  creation  no  creature,  without 
creature  no  sin.”  It  is  true,  Calvinists  are  very  zeal¬ 
ous  for  the  Divine  glory,  and  consequently  have 
always  maintained  that  sin  enhances  God’s  honor. 
Surely,  he  could  have  had  creatures  without  sin,  for 
according  to  this  orthodox  theology,  God  can  do  all 


5  “  Works,”  p.  699. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE. 


331 


things.  Hence  Toplady  must  mean  that  God,  desir¬ 
ing  to  increase  his  glory  through  sin,  made  the  creat¬ 
ure  the  legitimate  vehicle  for  its  introduction. 

Dr.  Dick  is  disposed  to  be  fair  with  his  opponents  : 
of  this  subject  he  says,  “  Here  we  come  to  a  question 
which  has  engaged  the  attention,  and  exercised  the 
ingenuity,  and  perplexed  the  wits  of  men  in  every  age. 
If  God  has  foreordained  whatever  comes  to  pass,  the 
whole  series  of  events  is  necessary  and  human  liberty 
is  taken  away.  Men  are  passive  instruments  in  the 
hands  of  their  Maker  ;  they  can  do  nothing  but  what 
they  are  secretly  and  irresistibly  impelled  to  do  ;  they 
are  not,  therefore,  responsible  for  their  actions  ;  and 
God  is  the  author  of  sin.” 

This  is  the  Arminian  objection,  and  our  thanks  are 
due  to  Dr.  Dick  for  its  admirable  arrangement.  How 
does  he  meet  it?  He  notices  several  methods,  but 
does  not  deem  them  very  satisfactory  :  his  solution  is 
this.  “  It  is  a  more  intelligible  method  to  explain  the 
subject  by  the  doctrine  which  makes  liberty  consist  in 
the  power  of  acting  according  to  the  prevailing  incli¬ 
nation,  or  the  motive  which  appears  strongest  to  the 
mind.  Those  actions  are  free  which  are  the  effects 
of  volition.  In  whatever  manner  the  state  of  mind 
which  gave  rise  to  volition  has  been  produced,  the 
liberty  of  the  agent  is  neither  greater  nor  less.  It  is 
his  will  alone  which  is  to  be  considered,  and  not  the 
means  by  which  it  has  been  determined. 

If  God  foreordained  certain  actions,  and  placed 
men  in  such  circumstances  that  the  actions  would  cer¬ 
tainly  take  place  agreeably  to  the  laws  of  the  mind, 
men  are,  nevertheless  moral  agents,  because  they  act 
voluntarily  and  are  responsible  for  the  actions  which 


332  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

consent  has  made  their  own.  Liberty  does  not  con¬ 
sist  in  the  power  of  acting  or  not  acting,  but  in  acting 
from  choice.  The  choice  is  determined  by  something 
in  the  mind  itself,  or  by  something  external  influencing 
the  mind  ;  but  whatever  is  the  cause,  the  choice  makes 
the  action  free,  and  the  agent  accountable.  If  this 
definition  of  liberty  be  admitted,  you  will  perceive 
that  it  is  possible  to  reconcile  the  freedom  of  the  will 
with  absolute  decrees.”  6 

A  brief  consideration  will  disclose  the  sophism  of 
this  argument:  (i)  Admitting  that  his  definition  of 
liberty  be  correct  the  solution  does  not  solve  the 
problem,  our  author  being  the  criterion  :  after  the 
above  quotation  he  says,  “  But  we  have  not  got  rid  of 
every  difficulty  :  by  this  theory  human  actions  appear 
to  be  as  necessary  as  the  motions  of  matter  according 
to  the  laws  of  gravitation  and  attraction  ;  and  man 
seems  to  be  a  machine,  conscious  of  his  movements, 
and  consenting  to  them,  but  impelled  by  something 
different  from  himself.  ’  ’ 

Surely  this  is  a  frank  confession  and  I  see  no  reason 
why  it  should  not  be  accepted  and  the  so-called  solu¬ 
tion  rejected.  (2)  I  by  no  means  accept  Dr.  Dick’s 
definition  of  liberty  :  if  liberty  does  not  consist  in  the 
power  to  choose,  or  to  refrain  from  choosing  at  any 
given  time,  then  man  is  not  free  :  then  not  only  does 
he  seem  to  be,  but  in  fact  he  is  “a  machine,  conscious 
of  his  movements,  and  consenting  to  them,  but  im¬ 
pelled  by  something  different  from  himself.”  The 
doctrine  of  the  self-determining  power  of  the  will, 
or  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  is  no  longer  a  mere 
Arminian  postulate.  It  is  now  quite  universally  con- 


6  “  Lectures,”  pp.  357,  358. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  333 

ceded,  not  only  by  independent  thinkers,  but  also  by 
eminent  Calvinists.  Cousin  says,  “  I  am  conscious  ol 
this  sovereign  power  of  the  will.  I  feel  in  myself,  before 
its  determination,  the  force  that  can  determine  itself 
in  such  a  manner,  or  in  such  another.  At  the  same 
time  I  will  this  or  that,  I  am  equally  conscious  of  the 
power  to  will  the  opposite  :  I  am  conscious  of  being 
master  of  my  resolution,  of  the  ability  to  arrest  it, 
continue  it,  repress  it.”  7 

“  By  the  liberty  of  a  Moral  agent,”  says  Reid,  “  I 
understand  a  power  over  the  determinations  of  his  own 
will.  If  in  any  action  he  had  power  to  will  what  he 
did,  or  not  to  will  it,  in  that  action  he  is  free.  But  if, 
in  every  voluntary  action,  the  determination  of  his  will 
be  the  necessary  consequence  of  something  involun¬ 
tary  in  the  state  of  his  mind,  or  of  something  in  his 
external  circumstance  he  is  not  free  ;  he  has  not  what 
I  call  the  Liberty  of  a  Moral  agent,  but  is  subject  to 
necessity.”  8 

Although  Dr.  McCosh  holds  to  a  certain  kind  of 
mental  causation,  his  testimony  on  this  point  is  em¬ 
phatic.  “  When  it  is  said  that  the  will  is  free,  there 
is  more  declared  than  simply  that  we  can  do  what  we 
please.  It  is  implied,  farther,  that  the  choice  lies 
within  the  voluntary  power  of  the  mind,  and  that  we 
could  have  willed  otherwise  if  we  had  pleased.  The 
mind  has  not  only  the  power  of  action,  but  the  an¬ 
terior,  and  far  more  important  power  of  choice.  The 
freedom  of  the  mind  does  not  consist  in  the  effect  fol¬ 
lowing  the  volition,  as  for  instance,  in  the  movement 
of  the  arm  following  the  will  to  move  it,  but  the 


7  Cocker’s  “  Theistic  Conception  of  the  World,”  p.  382. 

8  Fleming’s  “  Moral  Philosphy,”  p.  194 


334  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

power  of  the  mind  to  form  the  volition  in  the  exercise 

of  its  voluntary  functions . In  making  this 

choice  we  are  no  doubt  swayed  by  considerations,  but 
these  have  their  force  given  them  by  the  will  itself, 
which  may  set  a  high  value  upon  them,  but  which 
may  also,  if  it  please,  set  them  at  defiance.”  9 

Dr.  Dick’s  definition  of  liberty  is  decidedly  falla¬ 
cious,  as  also  are  his  conclusions,  for  (3)  even  grant¬ 
ing  the  correctness  of  his  definition,  the  solution  does 
not  touch  the  real  point  at  issue.  For  the  sake  of  the 
argument  let  me  grant  that  upon  his  supposition  man 
is  responsible  for  his  volitions.  Suppose  I  concede 
that  so  far  as  man  is  concerned,  no  temptation  what¬ 
soever,  no  matter  how,  or  by  whom  presented,  can  in 
the  least  palliate  the  sin  of  yielding.  What  then  ? 
Why,  clearly,  this  pertains  to  the  individual’s  guilt, 
and  to  him  alone.  But  the  real  question  is  this  : 
What  is  God’s  relation  to  the  tempted  ?  Granting  that 
the  creature  is  guilty,  does  Dr.  Dick’s  supposition  free 
God  from  a  foul  imputation  ?  I  claim  it  does  not,  for 
it  is  reasonably  and  Seripturally  true  that  he  who 
tempts — in  the  sense  now  under  consideration — to  sin, 
he  who  induces  a  sinful  volition  is  a  party  to  the  trans¬ 
action,  and  hence,  is  so  far  criminally  guilty.  He 
who  tempts  to  evil  has  previously  determined  to  seek 
the  harm  of  the  tempted,  and  consequently  must  bear 
his  share  of  the  blame.  Balaam  seduced  the  Israel¬ 
ites  into  sin  :  they  were  guilty  for  yielding  to  his  solic 
itations  and  were  punished.  Was  the  prophet 
innocent?  The  Scriptures  convey  the  opposite  opin¬ 
ion  ;  his  doctrine  is  condemned  in  Rev.  ii.  14  ;  he  is 
said  to  have  loved  the  wages  of  unrighteousness  (11. 


9  ■'  Divine  Government,”  1870,  p,  271. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


335 


Pet.  ii.  15)  ;  was  slain  as  an  enemy  of  the  people  of 
God  (Num.  xxxi.  8). 

All  human  volitions  are  to  be  referred  to  some 
source  as  their  legitimate  cause.  So  far  forth  as  this 
source  is  predicated  of  God,  to  that  extent  does  this 
affirmation  make  him  the  author  of  sin. 

The  following  testimony  given  by  the  Princeton 
Essayists  is  an  admirable  rejoinder  to  the  argument  of 
Dr.  Dick.  “It  is,  moreover,  alleged,  that  we  are  so 
constituted,  that  we  judge  of  the  morality  of  actions 

without  any  reference  to  their  cause . This 

theory  has  many  advocates  in  our  country  and  is  con¬ 
sidered  an  improvement  of  the  old  Calvinistic  theory. 
But  it  is  repugnant  to  common  sense,  and  the  argu¬ 
ments  employed  in  its  defense  are  sophistical.  Sin  is 
sin,  by  whomsoever  produced.”  1 

Let  us  now  examine  the  views  of  President  Ed¬ 
wards.  2  “  If  by  the  author  of  sin  is  meant  the  per- 

mitter,  or  a  not-hinderer  of  sin,  and  at  the  same  time, 
a  disposer  of  the  state  of  events,  in  such  a  manner, 
for  wise,  holy,  and  most  excellent  ends  and  purposes, 


1  “Theological  Essays  From  Princeton  Review,”  1846,  pp.  73-75. 

2  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  reader  be  detained  by  a  consideration  of 
the  views  of  Edwards  concerning  liberty,  and  the  will  as  swayed  by 
the  strongest  motive,  or  the  greatest  apparent  good,  because  (1)  Dick’s 
doctrine  is  identical  with  that  of  Edwards’,  from  whom,  it  is  more  than 
probable,  he  obtained  it.  (2)  The  acceptance  of  the  doctrine  that  the  will 
is  self-determining,  has  the  power  of  contrary  choice,  necessarily  over¬ 
throws  the  Edwardeau  theory.  (3)  It  is  now  generally  conceded  that  the 
celebrated  dictum  of  Edwards,  has  not  been,  and  is  not  capable  of  being, 
demonstrated.  McCosh  says,  “  In  asserting  that  the  will  is  swayed  by 

motives  as  thus  defined,  we  are  affirming  nothing  to  the  point . We 

are  making  no  progress  :  we  are  swinging  upon  a  hinge  in  advancing  and 
readvancing  such  maxims.”  “  Divine  Government,”  p  273,  note.  See  also 
Article  “  The  Problem  of  the  Human  Will,”  by  Dr.  Henry  Calderwood, 
“Princeton  Review,”  September,  1879^.343.  Hodge’s  “  Theology,”  Vol. 
II.,  p.  289. 


336  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

that  sin,  if  it  be  permitted  or  not  hindered,  will  most 
certainly  and  infallibly  follow  :  I  say,  if  this  be  all 
that  is  meant,  by  being  the  author  of  sin,  I  do  not 
deny  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin — though  I  dislike 
and  reject  the  phrase,  as  that  which  by  use  and  cus¬ 
tom  is  apt  to  carry  another  sense.”  Again,  “If 
God  disposes  all  events,  so  that  the  infallible  existence 
is  decided  by  his  Providence,  then  he,  doubtless,  thus 
orders  and  decides  things  knowingly  and  on  design. 
God  does  not  do  what  he  does,  nor  order  what  he 
orders,  accidentally  or  unawares  :  either  without  or 
beside  his  intention.”  3  Here  are  four  affirmations  ; 
viz.,  (i)  God  has  wise,  holy  and  most  excellent  ends 
to  be  secured  by  means  of  sin.  (2)  He  orders  or  dis¬ 
poses  events  in  such  a  way  that  sin  will  infallibly 
occur.  (3)  He  does  this  designedly  :  and  (4)  He  is 
not  the  author  of  sin. 

Now,  in  all  seriousness  and  fairness,  I  ask  the 

reader,  Is  this,  can  this  be  true  ?  Your  child  is  well, 

\ 

and  free  from  all  danger  of  sickness.  Scarlet  fever  is 
in  the  neighborhood  :  you  do  not  warn  the  child  of 
the  danger,  nor  do  you  exercise  any  power  to  keep 
him  away  from  the  contagious  disease.  Nay,  you  are 
using  your  knowledge  so  as  to  have  that  child  led — 
freely  to  be  sure — into  the  danger  in  order  that  he 
may  imbibe  the  poison  and  die.  You  are  successful, 
and  are  complacently  enjoying  your  enhanced  glory, 
when  you  are  arrested  by  an  indignant  community  on 
the  charge  of  deliberate  murder.  This,  however,  you 
deny.  You  admit  that  he  died  under  your  govern¬ 
ment  ;  that  you  purposely  led  him  into  danger  ;  that 
you  designed  his  death.  But  you  are  no  murderer 


3  “Works,”  Rd,  1856,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  157,  179. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


337 


because  having  certain  good  and  wise  ends  to  secure 
by  his  death,  your  deed  was  right. 

I  think  the  examination  would  stop.  Such  a  jus¬ 
tification  would  outrage  the  sense  of  justice  in  the 
breast  of  a  heathen.  Public  opinion  would  inexorably 
demand  your  speedy  execution.  Yet  such  is  the  pitia¬ 
ble  excuse  for  the  Divine  procedure  offered  by  this  most 
celebrated  American  theologian.  Listen  :  “I  answer, 
that  for  God  to  dispose  and  permit  evil  in  the  manner 
that  has  been  spoken  of,  is  not  to  do  evil  that  good 
may  come  ;  for  it  is  not  to  do  evil  at  all.  In  order  to 
a  thing’s  being  morally  evil,  there  must  be  one  of 
these  things  belonging  to  it ;  either  it  must  be  a  thing 
unfit  and  unsuitable  in  its  own  nature ;  or  it  must 
have  a  bad  tendency  ;  or  it  must  proceed  from  an  evil 
disposition  and  be  done  for  an  evil  end.  But  neither 
of  these  things  can  be  attributed  to  God’s  ordering 
and  permitting  such  events  as  the  immoral  acts  of 
creatures,  for  good  ends.” 

I  do  not  wonder  that,  as  Chalmers  has  said,  “  Con¬ 
spicuous  infidels  and  semi-infidels  ....  have  tri¬ 
umphed  in  the  book  of  Edwards  as  that  which  set  a 
conclusive  seal  on  their  principles,”  for  if  much  of  his 
writing  is  not  logically  blasphemous,  I  am  ignorant  of 
the  meaning  of  the  term.  He  justifies  his  position  by 
three  arguments  or  affirmations,  viz.,  (i)  That  it  is 
eminently  fit  and  proper  that  God  should  order  and 
permit  the  sinful  acts  of  his  creatures.  (2)  To  do 
this  is  not  of  a  bad,  but  rather  of  a  most  glorious  ten¬ 
dency.  (3)  The  motive  is  good  and  the  actual  result 
is  good. 5  Here  are  as  many  fallacies  as  points.  Let 
us  candidly  consider  them.  He  first  maintains  it  is  fit 


5  p.  164. 


338  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

for  God  to  order  and  permit  sin  because  he  is  “  the 
Being  who  has  infinite  wisdom  and  is  the  Maker, 
Owner  and  Supreme  Governor  of  the  world.”  This 
is  based  on  the  assumption  that  because  .God  is 
infinitely  wise  and  because  he  is  the  Governor  of 
the  world  he  may  do  that  which  in  other  cir¬ 
cumstances  would  be  wrong.  This  he  substan¬ 
tially  acknowledges  when  he  says,  “  It  may  be 
unfit,  and  so  immoral,  for  any  other  beings  to  go 
about  to  order  this  affair.”  Why  ?  “  Because  they ^are 
not  possessed  of  a  wisdom  that  in  any  manner  fits 
them  for  it ;  and,  in  other  respects  they  are  not  fit 
to  be  trusted  with  this  affair  ;  nor  does  it  belong  to 
them,  they  not  being  the  owners  and  lords  of  the  uni¬ 
verse.” 

Beyond  all  controversy  this  part  of  the  argument 
assumes  that  infinite  wisdom  and  power  make  right. 
This  was  doubtless  considered  a  sound  principle  in 
the  time  of  Edwards,  but  as  we  shall  presently  see,  it 
has  long  since  been  rejected  as  philosophically  and 
theologically  pernicious.  His  second  argument  con¬ 
tradicts  the  first.  If,  as  he  here  affirms,  it  is  best  that 
sin  “should  come  to  pass”  then  why  should  it  be 
immoral  for  any  other  being  “to  go  about  to  order 
this  affair”  ?  To  be  sure,  such  a  person  might  be 
kindly  reproved  for  meddling  with  matters  outside 
his  sphere,  but  if  it  be  best  that  moral  evil  should 
come,  certainly  it  is  too  strong  language  to  call  him 
immoral.  Nay,  according  to  Edwards  himself,  this 
intermeddler  can  not  be  immoral,  for  “what  is  aimed 
at  is  good,  and  good  is  the  actual  issue,  in  the  final 
result  of  things.”  True,  this  last  remark  is  applied 
to  God  by  this  great  metaphysician,  but  I  affirm  if  a 


AND  man’s  moral  nature. 


339 


thing  is  good  because  the  aim  is  good  and  the  issue 
good,  the  principle  is  valid  for  man  as  well  as  for  God. 
Moreover  one  can  not  see  why  God  should  hate  moral 
evil  when  it  is  working  out  such  glorious  results.  Says 
Edwards,  “  There  is  no  inconsistence  in  supposing 
that  God  may  hate  a  thing  as  it  is  in  itself  and  con¬ 
sidered  simply  as  evil,  and  yet  that  it  may  be  his  will 
it  should  come  to  pass  considering  all  consequences.” 
If  this  be  true,  God  “designedly”  wills  the  permis¬ 
sion  of  that  which  he  eternally  hates,  and,  therefore, 
forbids.  The  reader  has  noticed  this  absurdity  in  the 
discussion  of  the  Atonement.  It  is  one  of  the  fatal 
positions  of  Calvinism.  It  is  an  essential  part  of  the 
system.  All  attempts  to  evade  it  have  resulted  in 
unequivocal  contradictions  or  in  arguments  which  can 
not  endure  the  test  of  sober  thought.  To  say  God 
does  not  will  sin  as  sin,  is  of  no  avail.  To  hate  that 
which  is  willed,  to  forbid  that  which  is  designed,  and 
which  terminates  in  the  most  glorious  results,  con¬ 
found  all  intellectual  and  moral  distinctions.  Sooner 
or  later,  the  heart  and  conscience  of  the  race  will  re¬ 
pudiate  the  theology  which  indorses  such  methods. 
His  third  position  is  identical  with  the  maxims  of  the 
Jesuits.  There  is  nothing  but  a  verbal  difference  be¬ 
tween  them.  Sin  is  made  the  means  of  good  according 
to  Edwards  as  deception  is  the  means  of  accomplishing 
the  holy  (?)  purposes  of  the  Jesuits.  Have  they  not 
said,  We  do  not  will,  nor  select  evil  things  because 
they  are  evil,  or  even  as  evil,  but  we  use  them  as  the 
occasion  or  means  of  obtaining  that  which  is  for  the 
best  results,  and  which  wTe  could  not  otherwise  obtain  ? 
Eastly,  what  a  confession  for  a  Calvinist  to  make  ! 
That  the  Infinite  God,  whose  power  is  absolute,  whose 


340  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


wisdom  is  past  finding  out,  should  be  so  weak  and 
inefficient  as  to  be  obliged  to  resort  to  the  aid  of  moral 
evil.  Where  is  the  much  boasted  divine  attribute  of 
Omnipotence  ? 


SECTION  v. 

God' s  Will  Not  the  Criterion  of  Right. 

The  previous  section  involved  the  questions,  Is  a 
thing  necessarily  right  because  God  does  it  ?  What  is 
the  ultimate  standard  of  right  ?  In  the  previous  pages 
I  tried  to  show  that  the  arguments  of  the  Calvinist 
by  which  he  sought  the  Divine  vindication  were  ille¬ 
gitimate  because  if  the  same  things  which  are 
predicated  of  God  were  done  by  man  he  would  be 
universal^  condemned  by  the  instinctive  sense  of  jus¬ 
tice.  Doubtless  the  Arminian  agrees  with  the  Calvin¬ 
ist  in  asserting  that  God’s  will  is  always  right.  I  do 
not  believe  that  God  will  ever  do  wrong.  This,  how¬ 
ever,  is  one  thing,  and  an  entirely  different  remark 
which  is  often  affirmed  by  the  Calvinist,  viz.,  that 
God  does  as  is  predicated  and  therefore  we  must  not 
reply  against  God.  This  I  emphatically  deny.  But 
how  shall  the  question  be  settled  ?  Clearly  by  no 
other  way  than  that  here  proposed. 

First  find  what  is  the  ultimate  criterion  of  right, 
and  then  discover,  if  possible,  what  are  the  sponta 
neous  affirmations  of  man’s  moral  nature.  If  thev  sus- 

a/ 

tain  the  arguments  of  the  Calvinist,  then  I  must  and 
do  acknowledge  my  error.  On  the  contrary,  if  they 
do  not  thus  uphold  him,  he  must  be  fundamentally 
wrong.  Tet  us  notice  ;  I.  What  is  the  question  ?  It 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


341 


is  not  that  God  can  not  do  things  which  would  be 
wrong  for  man  to  do.  No  sane  person  will  undertake 
to  defend  this  position.  Beyond  all  controversy  it  is 
right  for  God  to  do  many  things  which  would  be  very 
wrong  for  man  to  do.  As  Creator,  Preserver  and 
Judge  of  the  universe,  God  has  certain  powers  which 
necessarily  can  not  be  assumed  by  any  creature.  It  is 
not  necessary  to  enumerate  these  things.  The  mind 
instantly  perceives  the  truth  of  the  proposition.  The 
real  question  is  this  :  Has  man  any  rights  which 
his  Maker  is  in  duty  bound  to  regard  ?  If  God  says 
one  thing  and  does  the  opposite,  if  he  brings  his 
children  into  sin  while  they  are  innocent,  and  then 
punishes  them  for  that  which  he  was  the  direct  or 
indirect  cause  of  their  doing,  and  which  he  desired 
them  to  do,  are  the  moral  sentiments  to  be  choked  and 
condemned  because  they  spontaneously  array  them¬ 
selves  against  such  proceedings  ? 

II.  What  are  some  of  the  consequences  deduci- 
ble  from  the  proposition,  God’s  will  is  the  criterion  of 
right?  (1)  It  robs  the  Deity  of  moral  character.  If 
his  will  makes  right,  then  anything  which  he  might 
choose  would  become  morally  obligatory.  Instead  of 
being  guided  by  moral  considerations  his  will  would 
make  those  considerations,  and  hence  he  could  not  be 
said  to  be  holy.  For  holiness  is  the  result  of  a  holy 
choice,  which  necessarily  presupposes  something  holy 
to  be  chosen.  (2)  If  God’s  will  makes  right,  then  we 
have  only  to  suppose  a  change  in  that  will,  and 
our  moral  distinctions  would  instantly  vanish.  Or, 
God  might  will  differently  in  different  parts  of  the 
universe,  and  then  would  follow  as  a  consequence  the 
remark  of  John  Stuart  Mill  that  somewhere  in  the 


342  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

universe  two  and  two  might  make  five.  True,  there 
is  no  probability  of  the  Divine  Will  thus  changing, 
but  philosophy  and  theology  demand  a  broader  and 
more  secure  foundation  than  such  a  supposition.  (3) 
Again,  if  God’s  will  makes  right,  we  have  only  to 
imagine  that  he  had  refrained  from  willing,  and  as  a 
consequence  all  actions  would  have  been  the  same. 
Theft,  impurity,  murder,  the  same  as  honesty,  chastity 
and  love. 

III.  Rejecting  as  we  must,  this  first  supposition, 
that  the  divine  will  makes  right,  where  shall  we  place 
the  ultimate  standard  ?  In  the  nature  of  things,  or 
the  nature  of  God  ?  In  favor  of  the  former  there  are 
many  eminent  metaphysicians  and  theologians.  Such 
names  as  Cudworth,  Price,  Clark,  Butler,  Reid,  Stew¬ 
art,  Wardlaw  and  Mackintosh  are  certainly  not  to  be 
despised  nor  treated  with  little  respect.  With  these 
philosophers  agree  many  celebrated  Calvinists.  Em¬ 
mons  in  a  sermon  on  “  The  Essential  and  Immutable 
Distinction  Between  Right  and  Wrong”  says,  “As 
virtue  and  vice,  therefore,  take  their  origin  from  the 
nature  of  things,  so  the  difference  between  moral  good 
and  moral  evil  is  as  immutable  as  the  nature  of  things, 

from  which  it  results . The  difference  between 

virtue  and  vice  does  not  depend  upon  the  will  of  God, 
because  his  will  can  not  make  nor  destroy  this  immut¬ 
able  difference.  And  it  is  no  more  to  the  dishonor  of 
God  to  suppose  that  he  can  not,  than  that  he  can  per¬ 
form  impossibilities.”  6 

Dr.  Robt.  J.  Breckenridge  says,  “  To  us  no  doubt 


G  As  quoted  in  Dr.  H.  B.  Smith’s  Faith  and  Philosophj',”  p.  223. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


343 


all  that  God  wills  is  right  ;  but  in  God  himself  there 
is  a  very  wide  difference  between  saying,  he  wills  any¬ 
thing  because  it  is  right — that  is,  because  it  accords 
with  all  his  Perfections — and  saying  anything  is  right, 
that  is,  accords  with  his  Perfections,  merely  because  he 
wills  it.  A  distinction  which  draws  after  it — remote 
and  subtle  as  it  may  be  supposed  to  be — the  whole 
nature  of  moral  good  and  evil,  and  the  whole  economy 
of  salvation.  For  the  necessary  and  immutable  dis¬ 
tinction  between  good  and  evil ;  and  the  foundation  of 
all  religion  both  in  God  and  human  nature  ;  and  the 
rule  of  God’s  infinite  justice  ;  and  the  need  of  a  Sav¬ 
iour  ;  are  all  subverted  and  every  logical  foundation 
taken  away  from  them  as  soon  as  the  mere  will  of  God 
is  substituted  for  the  perfection  of  all  his  attributes,  and 
the  Holiness  of  his  adorable  nature,  as  the  ultimate 
ground  of  moral  distinctions,  and  the  fundamental 
basis  of  right  actions.  Good  and  evil  depend  on  law, 
not  on  nature,  was  an  apothegm  of  the  ancient  athe¬ 
ists — who  only  substituted  nature  for  God  in  the  prop¬ 
osition.  The  number  is  not  small  amongst  Christian 
teachers,  who,  under  the  guise  of  evangelical  contempt 
for  human  reason  and  extraordinary  devotion  to  the 
honor  of  God’s  revealed  will,  still  retain  in  a  somewhat 
different  logical  form,  and  perhaps,  in  a  somewhat 
mitigated  degree,  the  essential  poison  of  this  detesta¬ 
ble  paradox.”  7 

Chalmers  thus  puts  the  question  :  ‘  ‘  Wherein  is  it 
that  the  rightness  of  morality  lies  ?  or  whence  is  it 
that  this  rightness  is  derived  ?  Whether,  more  par¬ 
ticularly  it  have  an  independent  rightness  of  its  own, 


7  “  The  Knowledge  of  God,  Objectively  Considered,”  p.  293. 


344  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

or  it  be  right  only  because  God  wills  it  ?  It  might  be 
proper  to  state  that  between  the  two  terms  of  the  alter¬ 
native  as  last  put,  our  clear  preference — or  rather,  our 
absolute  and  entire  conviction — is  on  the  side  of  the 
former.  We  hold  that  morality  has  a  stable,  inherent, 
and  essential  rightness  in  itself,  and  that  anterior  to  or 
apart  from,  whether  the  tacit  or  expressed  will  of  any 
being  in  the  universe — that  it  had  a  subsistence  and  a 
character  before  that  any  creatures  were  made  who 
could  be  the  subjects  of  a  will  or  a  government  at  all, 
and  when  no  other  existed  besides  God  himself  to 
exemplify  its  virtues  and  its  graces.”  Again  he  says, 
“Now  it  is  here  that  we  join  issue  with  our  antagon¬ 
ists,  and  affirm  that  God  is  no  more  the  Creator  of 
virtue  than  he  is  of  truth — that  justice  and  benevolence 
were  virtues  previous  to  any  forthputting  of  will  or 
jurisprudence  on  his  part,  and  that  he  no  more  ordained 
them  to  be  virtues  than  he  ordained  that  the  three 
angles  of  a  triangle  should  be  equal  to  two  right 
angles.”  8 

To  the  same  effect  speaks  Dr.  McCosh,  who  says, 
“  Divines  often  put  it  in  the  wrong  place  psychologic¬ 
ally  and  logically  ;  and  represent  the  Divine  Will 
and  the  Divine  Command  as  the  ground  of  virtue. 
Doubtless,  they  intend  thereby  to  benefit  the  cause  of 
religion,  but  they  are  in  reality  doing  it  serious  injury. 
The  proper  statement  is  that  a  deed  is  good,  not  be¬ 
cause  God  wills  it,  but  that  he  wills  it  because  it  is 
good.  To  reverse  this  order,  is  to  unsettle,  as  it 
appears  to  us,  the  foundations  of  morality.”  9  Sub- 


8  “  Institutes  of  Theology.”  Vol.  I.,  pp.  22,  23. 

9  “  Divine  Government,”  p.  321. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


345 


stantially,  the  same  view  was  held  by  Charnock, 
Edwards,  Bellamy,  Dwight,  and  Robert  Hall. 

It  is,  however,  regarded  by  some  eminent  scholars 
as  liable  to  one  serious  objection  ;  namely,  it  makes 
the  right  or  the  good  outside,  and  therefore  independ¬ 
ent  of  God.  Hence,  they  conceive  the  ultimate  stand¬ 
ard  of  ethics  to  be  in  the  Nature  of  God,  which  they 
think  escapes  the  difficulty  just  now  named,  and  also 
the  dangerous  position  of  making  the  Divine  Will  the 
criterion  of  morality.  Such  was  the  real  view  of 
Chalmers  and,  if  I  mistake  not,  is  taught  in  the  works 
of  Dr.  Mark  Hopkins — with  one  modification — the 
substituting  of  “character”  for  “  nature  ”  of  Deity. 
On  this  supposition  the  will  of  God  would  choose  in 
accordance  with  his  nature,  thus  making  his  will 
ethically  right.1  If  God’s  will  does  not  make  right, 
but  if  on  the  contrary  it  is  guided  by  the  law  of  right, 
it  is  fair  to  suppose  the  free  creatures  of  God  are  simi¬ 
larly  constituted.  Such  is  the  fact  as  demonstrated 
by  experience.  The  moral  nature  of  man  is  the 
basis  of  all  communication  between  heaven  and  earth  : 
A  fallen  race  demands  divine  interposition.  The 
written  revelation  supplements,  but  does  not  contra¬ 
dict  that  which  is  declared  in  the  very  constitution  of 
man.  Should  it  do  this,  that  would  at  once  suffice  to 
show  its  spuriousness.  Hence,  as  a  fact  the  Bible 
always  assumes  that  man  has  some  knowledge  of  right 


i  Dorner  holds  “  that  God  is  a  moral  being  first,  by  necessity  of 
nature  ;  secondly,  by  his  own  free  act  ,  and  thirdly,  that  on  the  ground  of 
both  together,  he  is  eternally  self-conscious,  free  and  holy  love.”  Marten- 
sen’s  position  is  quite  similar.  God  ‘‘wills  the  good,  because  it  is  good  in 
itself ;  not,  however,  as  something  extant  outside  of  him,  but  because  the 
good  is  in  his  own  eternal  essence.” 


346  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

and  wrong.  It  appeals  to  this  instinctive  sense  of  right. 
It  urges  the  claims  of  God  because  they  are  inherently 
right.  It  represents  God  as  being  not  merely  willing, 
but  anxious  to  meet  his  wayward  children,  and  by 
calm  reason  convince  them  of  their  need  and  of  his 
love. 

While  it  is  not  denied  that  the  Scriptures — and 
especially  the  Holy  Spirit — quicken,  enlighten  and 
guide  the  moral  judgments,  it  is  emphatically  true 
that  in  their  fundamental  utterances,  they  are  as  inde¬ 
pendent  of  the  written  revelation  as  God’s  nature  is 
independent  of  his  will.  Consequently,  it  is  not  irrev¬ 
erent  for  man  to  expect  that  God  will  always  do  right. 
It  is  not  blasphemous  to  subject  the  arguments  of 
those  who  seek  his  vindication  to  a  rigid  test,  and  to 
examine  them  in  the  light  of  the  spontaneous  affirma¬ 
tions  of  the  moral  faculty. 

The  principle  for  which  I  am  here  contending  is 
clearly  seen  and  forcibly  expressed  by  Edwards,  who 
says,  “  We  never  could  have  any  notion  what  under¬ 
standing  or  volition,  love  or  hatred  are,  either  in  created 
spirits  or  in  God,  if  we  had  never  experienced  what 
understanding  and  volition,  love  and  hatred  are  in  our 
own  minds.  Knowing  what  they  are  by  conscious¬ 
ness,  we  can  add  degrees,  and  deny  limits,  and  remove 
changeableness  and  other  imperfections,  and  ascribe 
them  to  God,  which  is  the  only  way  we  come  to  be 
capable  of  conceiving  of  anything  in  the  Deity.”  2 

And  hereby  we  know  that  we  are  of  the  truth,  and 
shall  assure  our  hearts  before  him.  For  if  our  heart 


2  “  Works.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  287 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


347 


condemn  us,  God  is  greater  than  our  heart,  and 
knoweth  all  things.  Beloved,  if  our  heart  condemn 
us  not,  then  have  we  confidence  toward  God  ”  (i.  John 

iii-  19-21). 

If  my  reasoning  be  correct  we  have  now  reached 
the  position  where  we  can  fairly  decide  to  what  extent 
the  Calvinistic  arguments  vindicate  the  Divine  Gov¬ 
ernment.  In  the  previous  section  the  reader  had  the 
opportunity  of  examining  the  views  of  Griffin,  Top- 
lady,  Dick  and  Edwards.  The  first  of  this  celebrated 
company  maintains  that  God  withdrew  his  influence 
from  Adam  in  order  that  sin  might  occur.  Mark,  not 
for  sin,  because  on  his  theory  sin  was  impossible  prior 
to  that  withdrawment.  The  second  adopts  the  scho¬ 
lastic  maxim  that  “  an  effect  follows  from,  and  is  to  be 
ascribed  to,  the  last  immediate  cause  that  produced 
it.”  If  God  had  kept  hold  of  the  soul  there  would 
have  been  no  fall,  and  if  no  fall,  no  sin ;  “  Yet  is  not 
sin  chargeable  on  God  :  for  effectus  sequitur  causam 
proximam .” 

The  third  view  not  only  adopts  a  fallacious  defini¬ 
tion  of  liberty,  but  claims  that  a  tempter  to  a  sinful  act 
is  not  to  be  held  as  a  particeps  criminis  to  the  transac¬ 
tion  :  while  Edwards  maintains  that  God  can  design¬ 
edly  order  sin  without  being  in  the  least  contaminated 
thereby  ;  although  the  very  same  thing  in  man  would 
“  be  unfit  and  so  immoral.” 

Now  I  claim  that  these  positions  do  not  vindicate 
the  character  of  God,  as  predicated  by  the  Calvinists. 
I  claim  that  they  are  everlastingly  at  war  with  man’s 
moral  convictions  :  that  in  the  same  circumstances 
the  spontaneous  affirmations  of  human  justice  would 


348  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

unqualifiedly  condemn  any  man  guilty  of  such  acts  : 
that  God  is  not,  can  not  be  such  a  Father,  of  whom  it 
is  said,  “He  can  not  be  tempted  with  evil,  neither 
tempteth  he  any  man.’’ 

SECTION  vi. 

The  Infra  la psa  ria  n  Scheme.  Does  it  solve  the  Problem  ? 

Dr.  Robert  Aikman  has  said  that  all  Presbyterians 
are  “either  Supralapsarians  or  Sublapsarians — or,  as 
Dr.  Hodge  prefers  to  say  of  the  latter,  Infralapsarians.’’ 
These  terms  refer  to  the  supposed  order  of  the  decrees. 
The  Supralapsarians  maintain  that  “God  in  order  to 
manifest  his  grace  and  justice  selected  from  creatable 
men  ( i .  c.,  from  men  to  be  created)  a  certain  number 
to  be  vessels  of  wrath.  In  the  order  of  thought,  elec¬ 
tion  and  reprobation  precede  the  purpose  to  create  and 
to  permit  the  fall.  God  creates  some  to  be  saved,  and 
others  to  be  lost.  This  scheme  is  called  supralapsa- 
rian  because  it  supposes  that  men  as  unfallen,  or  before 
the  fall,  are  the  objects  of  election  to  eternal  life,  and 

foreordination  to  eternal  death . According  to 

the  infralapsarian  doctrine,  God,  with  the  design  to 
reveal  his  own  glory,  that  is,  the  perfections  of  his 
own  nature,  determined  to  create  the  world  ;  secondly, 
to  permit  the  fall  of  man  ;  thirdly,  to  elect  from  the 
mass  of  fallen  men  a  multitude  whom  no  man  could 
number  as  ‘  vessels  of  mercy  ’  ;  fourthly,  to  send  his 
Son  for  their  redemption  ;  and  fifthly,  to  leave  the 
residue  of  mankind,  as  he  left  the  fallen  angels,  to 
suffer  the  just  punishment  of  their  sins.”3 


3  Hodge’s  “  Theology.”  Vol.  II.,  pp.  316,  319. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


349 


According  to  Hagenbach,  “  .  .  .  .  the  name  Su- 
pralapsarians,  ....  does  not  occur  prior  to  the 
Synod  of  Dort.”  This  must  be  understood  as  refer¬ 
ring  to  the  name  per  se,  for  from  its  first  introduc¬ 
tion  the  doctrine  has  had  many  advocates.  It  was 
certainly  taught  by  Calvin  and  Beza.  The  remark  of 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge  that  in  the  works  of  Calvin  there 
are  passages  favoring  both  sides  of  the  question, 
aptly  illustrates  that  which  is  true  of  nearly  all  Cal¬ 
vinists.”  4 

Of  the  intimate  friend  of  Calvin  Professor  S.  M. 
Hopkins  says,  “  Supralapsarian  Calvinism,  and  an 
elaborate  argument  to  prove  that  the  civil  magistrate  is 
bound  to  punish  heresy  with  death  were  the  gift  Beza 
presented  to  the  churches  of  the  Netherlands.”  5 

The  generic  distinction  between  the  supralapsarian 
and  infralapsarian  doctrine  is,  that  the  former  asserts 
and  the  latter  denies  that  the  decree  of  reprobation  is 
irrespective  of  man’s  condition.  It  is  upon  this  sup¬ 
posed  ‘  ‘  order  of  the  decrees  ’  ’  that  the  entire  discus¬ 
sion  turns.  I  now  propose  to  show  that  one  of  two 
things  must  inevitably  follow  ;  namely  (i)  The  infra¬ 
lapsarian  scheme  is  really  no  solution,  and  is  only  a 
metaphysical  subterfuge  to  escape  the  “horrible” 
conclusion  of  supralapsarianism ;  or  (2)  If  it  is  accepted, 
it  logically  necessitates  the  fundamental  position  of 
Arminianism.  The  following  points  should  be  care 
fully  considered,  (a)  The  extreme  modesty  of  the 
infralapsarians.  They  tell  us  of  the  exact  order  of  the 


4  See  Part  II.,  Chap.  IV.,  Sec.  I.  and  II. 

5  “  Opening  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.”  “ 
1878,  p.  323. 


Princeton  Review,”  March 


350  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD'S  WORD 

divine  decrees.  They  even  number  them  as  “  first,’ * 
“second,”  and  “third.”  Job’s  question,  “  Canst 
thou  by  searching  find  out  God  ?  Canst  thou  find  out 
the  Almighty  unto  perfection?”  is  no  longer  unan¬ 
swerable.  All  honor  to  the  infralapsarians  who  remind 
us  of  the  poet’s  words, 

“  Herein  I  recognize  the  high-learned  man, 

What  you  have  never  handled— no  man  can.” 

But  pause,  I  am  mistaken.  I  do  them  great  injus¬ 
tice  :  for  (£)  There  is  no  order  of  the  decrees.  To  be 
sure,  Dr.  Hodge  thinks  it  is  convenient,  very  conven¬ 
ient  to  talk  as  though  the  divine  purposes  were  suc¬ 
cessively  formed,  but  he  has  the  frankness  to  say  that 
such  is  not  the  fact.  It  is  simply  a  human,  in  fact,  an 
infralapsarian  way  of  speaking  without  any  divine 
reality  ;  he  says,  “  The  decrees  of  God,  therefore,  are 
not  many,  but  one  purpose  ;  ”  again,  the  decrees  are 
eternal,  for  this  “  necessarily  follows  from  the  perfec¬ 
tion  of  the  divine  Being.  He  can  not  be  supposed  to 
have  at  one  time  plans  or  purposes  which  he  had  not 
at  another.”  6  If  this  be  true,  what  is  the  use  of  talk¬ 
ing  of  the  order  of  the  decrees  ?  None  whatever, 
except  to  hide  the  defects  of  the  system,  (c)  Is  it 
true  that  God  barel}T  permits  the  fall  of  man?  Well, 
let  us  see  what  Dr.  Hodge  will  answer.  In  treating  of 
this  subject,  our  author  is  in  the  company  of  Calvin  ; 
that  is,  his  writings  contain  passages  favoring  both 
sides.  On  one  page  he  will  talk  as  though  he  held 
the  doctrine  of  bare  permission,  while  on  another  page 
much  stronger  language  will  be  used:  thus  he  says, 


6  “  Theology.”  Vol.  I.,  pp.  537,  538. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


35 1 


“Some  things  he  purposes 
to  do,  others  he  decrees  to  per¬ 
mit  to  be  done. ”  “It  may  be, 
and  doubtless  is,  infinitely 
wise  and  just  in  God  to  permit 
the  occurrence  of  sin,  and  to 
adopt  a  plan  of  which  sin  is  a 
certain  consequence  or  ele¬ 
ment.’1  Vol.  I.,  pp.  541-7. 


“  The  Scriptures  teach  that 
sinful  acts,  as  well  as  such  as 
are  holy,  are  foreordained.” 
“  As  the  Scriptures  teach  that 
the  providential  control  of  God 
extends  to  all  events,  even  the 
most  minute,  they  do  thereby 
teach  that  his  decrees  are 
equally  comprehensive.”  Vol. 
I->  P-  543- 


But,  granting  that  Dr.  Hodge  is  to  be  interpreted 
according  to  the  term  “permit,”  what  is  the  result? 
If  the  fall  of  mail  was  permitted,  yet  it  took  place 
according  to  his  will  :  if  it  occurred  according  to  his 
will,  he  certainly  designed  it  :  if  he  designed  it,  he 
certainly  decreed  it.  This  is  substantially  confessed 
by  Dr.  Hodge.  “Whatever  he  does,  he  certainly 
purposed  to  do.  Whatever  he  permits  to  occur,  he 
certainly  purposed  to  permit.”  Now  what  is  the 
difference  between  the  supralapsarian  and  the  infra- 
lapsarian  ?  Simply  this  :  one  is  fearless  enough  to 
state  his  doctrine  just  as  it  is  ;  the  other  hides  behind 
a  sophism.  Does  the  reader  imagine  that  my  reason¬ 
ing  on  this  point  is  fallacious?  Take  the  other  horn 
of  the  dilemma.  Maintain,  for  one  moment  that  there 
is  an  essential  difference  between  the  effecting  and 
permitting  decrees,  and  you  have  denied  their  unity  ; 
hence  Calvinism  is  in  ruins.  The  decrees  are  but  one 
purpose  ;  whatever  is  affirmed  of  one,  must  be  true  of 
all,  and  consequently  the  infralapsarian  terminology  is 
a  distinction  without  a  difference. 


That  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  foreknowledge  is 
logically  necessiated  by  the  position  of  the  infralap- 
sarians  is  easily  demonstrated.  If  God  decreed  to 


352  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

permit  sin,  he  certainly  foreknew  it  ;  otherwise  there 
is  no  permission  :  sin  occurred  without  his  knowledge. 
Hence,  so  far  forth,  the  decrees  are  subsequent  to,  and 
conditioned  on  foreknowledge,  but  if  one  or  more 
decrees  are  conditional,  others  may  be  so,  nay,  must 
be  so,  for  are  not  the  decrees  one  ?  Thus  we  reach 
the  ground  of  the  Arininian,  who  is  doubtless  thankful 
to  the  infralapsarians  for  their  undesigned  indorse¬ 
ment. 

SECTION  VII. 

My  Positio7i  Confirmed  by  Eminent  Calvinists . 

In  a  previous  section  the  reader  has  seen  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  the  infralapsarians  concerning  the  legiti¬ 
mate  conclusion  of  supralapsarianism.  He  will  now 
have  an  opportunity  to  hear  the  other  side,  and  thus 
be  able  to  judge  for  himself  as  to  the  merits  of  both 
schemes.  Before  doing  so,  however,  it  may  be  inter¬ 
esting  to  notice  the  testimony  of  some  Calvinists  who 
are  not  pronounced  supralapsarians.  We  have  already 
heard  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Dabney.  With  his  per¬ 
mission  we  will  recall  him:  he  thinks  “both  parties 
are  wrong  in  their  method,  and  the  issue  is  one  which 
should  never  have  been  raised.”  There  is  “neither 
supra  nor  infralapsarian,  and  no  room  for  their 
debate.” 

Dr.  Dick  is  so  candid  and  withal  so  consistent  that 
the  reader  will  greatly  appreciate  the  following.  He 
is  considering  the  charge  of  God  being  the  author  of 
sin  : 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


353 


“  I  acknowledge  that  this 
horrible  inference  seems  to 
be  naturally  deduced  from 
the  supralapsarian  scheme.” 
“There  is  something  in  this 
system  repugnant  to  our  ideas 
of  the  character  of  God,  whom 
it  represents  rather  as  a  des¬ 
pot  than  the  Father  of  the 
universe.”  pp.  373,  369. 


“  But  it  does  not  follow  from 
our  scheme  which  supposes 
sin  as  the  groundwork  of  pre¬ 
destination.  ”  “The  term  pre¬ 
destination  includes  the  de¬ 
crees  of  election  and  reproba¬ 
tion.  Some  indeed,  confine  it 
to  election  :  but  there  seems  to 
be  no  sufficient  reason  for  not 
extending  it  to  the  one  as  well 
as  the  other ;  as  in  both,  the 
final  condition  of  man  is  pre¬ 
appointed,  or  predestinated. 

.  .  .  The  sublapsarian  scheme 
removes  no  difficulty,  but 
merely  speaks  in  terms  less 
offensive.  It  is  virtually  the 
same  thing  to  say  that  God 
decreed  that  Adam  should  fall, 
and  then  decreed  to  save  some 
of  his  posterity  and  leave 
others  to  perish ;  as  to  say 
that  God  first  decreed  to  save 
some  and  condemn  others  and 
then  in  order  to  accomplish 
this  design  decreed  the  fall  of 
Adam  and  the  whole  human 
race  in  him.”  pp.  373,  360,  361. 


Here  we  have  not  only.diamond  cutting  diamond, 
but  self  arrayed  against  self.  One  is  led  to  inquire 
if  Dr.  Dick  is  not  attempting  a  third  solution,  which 
shall  keep  clear  of  both  schemes  ;  the  one  which  rep¬ 
resents  God  “as  a  despot,”  and  that  which  “  removes 
no  difficulty  but  merely  speaks  in  terms  less  offensive.  ’  ’ 
But  no,  it  can  not  be.  It  is  logically  impossible.  All 
Calvinists  are  supra  or  infralapsarians,  says  Dr.  Aik- 
man.  Moreover,  Dr.  Dick  uses  the  infralapsarian,  or 


354  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

sublapsarian  language,  which  makes  sin  the  ground¬ 
work  of  the  reprobating  decree.  After  such  a  con¬ 
vincing  argument  I  am  prepared  for  anything,  and 
hence  the  following  confession  from  our  eminently 
consistent  author  is  in  order.  “I  confess  that  the 
statement  may  be  objected  to  as  not  complete  ;  that 
there  are  still  difficulties  which  press  upon  us  :  that 
perplexing  questions  may  be  proposed,  and  that  the 
answers  which  have  been  returned  to  them  by  great 
divines  are  not  so  satisfactory  in  every  instance  as 
those  imagine  who  do  not  think  for  themselves,  and 
take  too  much  upon  trust.” 

Calvin  says,  “  Many  professing  a  desire  to  defend 
the  Deity  from  an  invidious  charge,  admit  the  doctrine 
of  election  but  deny  that  any  one  is  reprobated.  This 
they  do  ignorantly  and  childishly,  since  there  could 
be  no  election,  without  its  opposite  reprobation.” 
Waxing  warmer  and  warmer,  the  great  Reformer  says 
of  those  who  are  infralapsarians,  “  Here  they  recui  to 
the  distinction  between  will  and  permission,  the  ob¬ 
ject  being  to  prove  that  the  wicked  perish  only  by  the 
permission,  but  not  by  the  will  of  God.  But  why  do 
we  say  that  he  permits,  but  just  because  he  wills  ? 
Nor,  indeed,  is  there  any  probability  in  the  thing  it¬ 
self,  viz.,  that  man  brought  death  upon  himself, 
merely  by  the  permission,  and  not  by  the  ordination 
of  God !  As  if  God  had  not  determined  what  he 
wished  the  condition  of  the  chief  of  his  creatures  to 
be.”  Of  the  doctrine  that  says  God  merely  permitted 
Pharaoh  to  be  hardened,  he  calls  it  a  “  silly  cavil  ” 
and  maintains,  “If  to  harden  means  only  bare  per¬ 
mission,  the  contumacy  will  not  properly  belong  to 
Pharaoh.  Now,  could  anything  be  more  feeble 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


355 


and  insipid  than  to  interpret  as  if  Pharaoh  had  only 
allowed  himself  to  be  hardened  ?  ”  7 

The  following  from  Dr.  S.  S.  Smith  is  quite  impor¬ 
tant  as  coming  from  an  honorable  president  of  the 
College  of  New  Jersey.  Of  moral  evils,  he  says,  “To 
say  that  they  have  been  merely  permitted,  without 
any  interference,  or  concern  of  Almighty  God  in  the 
actions  of  men,  is  only  attempting,  by  the  illusion  of  a 
word,  to  throw  the  difficulty  out  of  sight,  not  to  solve 

it . The  greater  part  of  those  writers  who  are 

friendly  to  the  system  of  divine  decrees,  afraid,  at  the 
same  time,  of  seeming  to  detract  from  the  holiness  of 
God,  have,  in  order  to  avoid  this  impious  consequence, 
thought  it  useful  to  conceive  of  the  Divine  purposes  in 
a  certain  order,  which  has,  therefore,  been  styled  the 
order  of  the  decrees.  Every  scheme,  however,  for  ar¬ 
ranging  them,  labors  under  the  same  essential  defect  ; 
that  of  seeming  to  represent  a  succession  in  the  Divine 
Mind  similar  to  what  must  necessarily  take  place  in 
the  designs  and  plans  of  men.  In  the  purposes  of 
God  there  can  be  no  succession  ;  ”  of  the  sublapsa- 
rianshe  says,  “  The  cautious  timidity  with  which  these 
writers  approach  this  subject  betrays  their  secret 
apprehension  that  the  decrees  of  God,  to  which,  on 
other  occasions,  they  freely  appeal,  have,  in  the  pro¬ 
duction  of  sin,  some  sinister  influence  on  the  moral 
liberty  of  man.  If  these  apprehensions  are  well 
founded,  they  ought  to  abandon  their  system  alto¬ 
gether.’’  8 

According  to  Hopkins  modern  Calvinists  are  less 


7  “Institutes.”  B.  III.,  Chap.  XXIII.,  Sec.  1-8.  B.  I.,  Chap.,  XVIII., 
Sec.  2. 

s  “  Nat.  and  Revealed  Religion,”  pp.  271,  277. 


356  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

consistent  than  Arminians,  and  should  give  up  their 
position.  “  It  has  been  observed  that  Calvin  and  the 
assembly  of  divines  at  Westminster  assert  that  the 
divine  decree  and  agency  respecting  the  existence  of 
sin  imply  more  than  a  bare  permission,  viz.,  some¬ 
thing  positive  and  efficacious.  They,  therefore,  who 
hold  to  only  a  bare  permission,  do  depart  from  those 
who  have  been  properly  called  Calvinists,  and  do  not 
agree  with  the  Confession  of  Faith  composed  by  said 
assembly  of  divines,  or  with  those  numerous  churches 
and  divines  who  do  assent  or  have  assented,  to 
that  Confession  of  Faith,  in  England,  Scotland  and 
America.”  9 

Rev.  Daniel  T.  Fiske  says,  “The  decrees  of  God 
are  not  merely  his  purposes  to  permit  events  to  take 
place  as  they  do.  Some  hold  that,  with  regard  to  the 
existence  of  sin,  we  can  only  affirm  that  the  divine 
decrees  extend  to  it  in  the  sense  that  God  determines 
to  permit  it,  that  is,  not  to  prevent  it.  But  this  lan¬ 
guage  does  not  seem  to  express  the  whole  truth. 
God  might,  indeed,  be  said  to  decree  the  existence 
of  whatever  he  could  have  prevented,  but  determined 
not  to  prevent.  But  the  decrees  of  God  are  not  mere 
negatives.  They  are  purposes  to  do  something  and  to 
do  that  which  renders  certain  the  existence  of  all 
events,  sin  included.”  1 

Bishop  Burnett  has  so  admirably  stated  the  ques¬ 
tion  that  I  am  sure  the  reader  will  be  pleased  at  its 
presentation  :  he  is  speaking  of  the  supralapsarians. 
“Nor  can  they  think  with  the  sublapsarians,  that 
reprobation  is  only  God’s  passing  by  those  whom  he 


0  “  Works.”  Vol.  I.,  pp.  144,  145. 

1  “Bib.  Sacra,”  Vol.  XIX.,  p.  404. 


and  man’s  moral  nature. 


357 


does  not  elect.  This  is  an  act  unworthy  of  God,  as  if 
he  forgot  them,  which  does  clearly  imply  imperfection. 
And  as  for  that  which  is  said  concerning  their  being 
fallen  in  Adam,  they  argue,  that  either  Adam’s  sin 
and  the  connection  of  all  mankind  to  him  as  their 
head  and  representative,  was  absolutely  decreed,  or  it 
was  not ;  if  it  was  then  all  is  absolute.  Adam’s  sin 
and  the  fall  of  mankind  were  decreed,  and  by  conse¬ 
quence,  all  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  are  under  a 
continued  chain  of  absolute  decrees  :  and  then  the 
supralapsarian  and  the  sublapsarian  hypothesis  will 
be  one  and  the  same,  only  variously  expressed. 

“  But  if  Adam’s  sin  was  only  foreseen  and  permitted, 
then  a  conditionate  decree  founded  upon  prescience, 
is  once  admitted,  so  that  all  that  follows  turns  upon 
it  :  and  then  all  the  arguments  either  against  the  per¬ 
fection  of  such  acts,  or  the  certainty  of  such  prescience, 
turns  against  this  ;  for  if  they  are  admitted  in  any  one 
instance,  then  they  may  be  admitted  in  others  as  well 
as  in  that.”  The  following  is  the  Bishop’s  personal 
opinion  :  “  The  sublapsarians  do  always  avoid  to 

answer  this  ;  and  it  seems  that  they  do  rather  incline 
to  think  that  Adam  was  under  an  absolute  decree  ; 
and  if  so,  then,  though  their  doctrine  may  seem  to 
those  who  do  not  examine  things  nicely,  to  look  more 
plausible  ;  yet  really  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing  with 
the  other.”  2 

This  is  the  legitimate  conclusion.  Beyond  all 
question,  the  whole  discussion  is  mere  logomachy.  It 
is  a  distinction  without  any  essential  difference  :  or  if 
the  difference  is  radical,  Arminianism  is  the  inevitable 
conclusion.  It  is  similar  to  the  language  employed 


2  “  Exposition,”  p.  212. 


35$  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

to  mystify  the  mind  on  the  Atonement.  When  the 
advocates  of  a  limited  Atonement  were  hard  pressed 
by  reason  and  Bible,  they  invented  the  subterfuge 
“Christ  died  sufficiently  or  meritoriously  for  all,  but 
efficaciously  only  for  the  elect. ’ s  So  when  the  doctrine 
of  Reprobation  is  closely  examined  and  followed  to  its 
logical  and  necessary  conclusion,  the  modern  Calvin¬ 
ist  recoits,  1  God  does  not  decree  the  perdition  of  the 
11011-elect.  He  has  merely  decreed  to  permit  them  to 
sin  and  perish.”  When  asked  to  explain  the  method 
of  this  wonderful  negative  decree,  our  friend  says,  “  It 
is  because  God  views  them  as  fallen,”  thus  making 
the  vision  of  God  as  narrow  as  their  own  ;  for  if  God 
can  view  men  as  fallen  before  they  are  created,  why 
can  not  he  view  them  as  repentant  under  the  influences 
of  the  Spirit  ?  Verily,  the  question  is  asked  in  vain. 
The  Calvinist  is  silent  except  when  he  breaks  out  with 
that  wonderfully  convincing  argument,  “  who  art 
thou  that  repliest  against  God  ?  ” 

SECTION  VIII. 

God  Not  Guiltless  if  He  Permits  When  He  Could  Pre- 

veiit  Sin. 

The  doctrine  that  God  permits  sin  has  been  va¬ 
riously  understood.  As  the  reader  has  seen,  all  con¬ 
sistent  Calvinists  accept  and  affirm  the  bold  theory 
that  all  sin  could  have  been  prevented  had  it  so  pleased 
God.  That  even  now  all  souls  might  be  converted, 
all  sin  immediately  stopped,  and  every  trace  of  wretch¬ 
edness  instantly  obliterated.  If  asked,  why  are  these 
things  permitted  ?  they  invariably  reply,  God  has  not 
revealed  all  the  reasons,  but  we  are  sure  that  it  must 
be  on  account  of  his  honor  and  glory.  Moreover,  they 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


359 


affirm  that  if  this  be  denied,  the  omnipotence  of  God 
is  seriously  impaired,  and  Atheism  is  the  logical  con¬ 
clusion. 

The  theory  of  Leibnitz  has  been  variously  inter¬ 
preted.  3  Without  doubt,  his  Theodicee  is  the  ablest 
theological  work  which  the  seventeenth  century  pro¬ 
duced.  If  it  did  not  satisfactorily  solve  the  problem, 
it  certainly  started  the  mind  in  the  right  direction  ; 
his  theory  of  the  ‘  ‘  privative  nature  of  evil  ’  ’  is  now 
quite  generally  regarded  as  inadequate.  Sin  is  more 
than  a  negation.  Our  consciousness  can  not  thus  be 
denied.  From  his  assertions  of  the  limitations  of  the 
creature,  some  have  deduced  the  doctrine  that  evil  is 
necessary.  Others  deny  this  and  assert  that  he  sim¬ 
ply  meant  “  that  the  possibility  of  evil  inheres  in  the 
very  nature  of  things.”  McCosh  thinks  that  “  it  can 
not  be  so  stated  as  not  to  involve  this  mystery,  that 
God  should  select  a  system  in  which  evil  is  allowed 
that  good  may  come.” 

I  am  inclined  to  think  that  this  is  a  just  criticism 
upon  Leibnitz,  for  unless  he  uses  the  word  permit 
ambiguously  he  certainly  fails  to  show  why  sin  is  not 
the  means  of  good  :  the  preface  to  his  work  contains 
the  following  :  “  We  show  that  evil  has  another 

source  than  the  will  of  God  ;  and  that  we  have  reason 
to  say  of  moral  evil,  that  God  only  permits  it,  and 
that  he  does  not  will  it.  But  what  is  more  important, 
we  show  that  God  can  not  only  permit  sin,  but  even 
concur  therein,  and  contribute  to  it,  without  prejudice 
to  his  holiness,  although  absolutely  speaking,  he 
might  have  prevented  it.” 

3  See  Cook’s  “  Transcendentalism,”  p.  188.  McCosh’s  “  Divine  Govern¬ 
ment,”  p.  377;  note  Hodge’s  “  Theology,”  Vol.  II.,  p.  134. 


360  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  LAW 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  so  great  a  thinker  as 
Ceibnitz  did  not  see  that  if  God, — “  absolutely  speak¬ 
ing  ” — permitted  that  which  he  might  have  prevented, 
he  must  have  preferred  its  existence  to  its  non-exist¬ 
ence,  and  consequently  did  really  will  its  existence. 
It  seems  to  me  there  are  but  two  suppositions  to  be 
considered.  Either  God  could  have  prevented  sin, 
but  did  not,  or  he  wished  to,  but  could  not.  The  first 
affirmation  is  accepted  by  all  consistent  Calvinists. 
The  second  is  adopted  and  more  or  less  clearly  de¬ 
fended  by  Arminians. 

The  reader  has  already  seen  some  of  the  conse¬ 
quences  which  legitimately  follow  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  that  God  can,  but  does  not  prevent  sin.  In 
the  present  section  I  am  to  show  that  if  this  dictum  be 
true,  God  can  not  be  guiltless.  Sin  is  pronounced  to 
be  wrong  both  by  God  and  man.  So  far  as  any  wrong 
is  permitted  by  any  person  having  full  power  and 
authority  to  prevent,  so  far  is  that  person  morally 
guilty.  This  is  true  of  man,  and  I  reverently  affirm 
it  to  be  of  universal  application.  The  highest  legal 
opinion  of  all  nations  asserts  the  principle  as  true  in 
private  and  public  life,  in  peace  as  well  as  war.  The 
conscience  and  intellectual  conviction  of  every  man 
will  instantly  accept  it.  Men  act  upon  it  in  every-day 
life  and  consequently  to  deny  its  force  in  theology  is 
mere  assumption. 

At  this  point,  however,  it  is  necessary  to  consider 
the  meaning  of  the  term  “permit.”  In  popular  lan¬ 
guage  Arminians  sometimes  speak  of  the  permission 
of  sin,  as  though  they  held  the  Calvinistic  doctrine. 
The  term  is  unfortunate  and  should  never  be  used  out¬ 
side  of  the  Calvinistic  system.  To  permit  a  thing  to 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


361 


occur  necessarily  implies  power  to  prevent ;  if  the  event 
can  not  be  prevented,  because  of  something  connected 
with  it,  then  it  can  not  be  permitted.  The  something 
which  is  beyond  prevention  is,  or  is  not  indissolubly 
connected  with  the  event  :  if  it  is  so  connected,  then 
the  power  to  prevent  must  embrace,  not  merely  the 
event  by  itself,  but  the  event  as  associated  with  that 
which  is  not  preventable  :  this  would  be  equivalent 
to  saying  that  the  event  is  not  permitted  because  not 
preventable.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  non-prevent- 
able  something  is  not  indissolubly  connected  with  the 
event,  the  event,  in  and  of  itself,  is  preventable,  and 
hence  is  really  permitted.  Moreover,  to  permit  denotes 
something  “  positive,  a  decided  assent,  either  directly 
or  by  implication.” 

Consequently  all  questions  relating  to  the  permis¬ 
sion  of  sin  arising  from  the  creation  of  man  are  decid¬ 
edly  out  of  place.  Calvinists  have  asserted,  and  at 
times  Arminians  have  rather  implied  the  same,  Why, 
surely  God  permitted  sin  because  he  created  man  ;  or 
God  permits  sin  because  he  could  deprive  the  race  of 
life,  or  in  any  case  of  individual  sinning  he  could  force 
the  soul  by  a  flash  of  lightning,  or  by  some  other 
means  equally  effective. 

These  questions  I  repeat,  have  no  place  in  this  dis¬ 
cussion.  They  confound  all  proper  distinctions  and 
cover  the  hideous  features  of  Calvinism.  Beyond  all 
doubt  God  is  free  in  all  his  actions.  He  was  under  110 
necessity  in  the  work  of  creation.  He  could  have 
made  a  different  world,  and  different  beings  to  inhabit 
it.  But  preferring  a  race  of  free  agents  with  the  pos¬ 
sibility — and  to  him  the  actuality — of  sin,  rather  than 
a  lower  order  of  creatures,  he  created  man.  In  this 


362  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

sense,  it  is  true,  sin  is  permitted  because  man  was  cre¬ 
ated.  But  this  is  not  the  problem  before  us;  for  if  God 
could  have  prevented  sin  only  by  refraining  from  cre¬ 
ating  man  in  his  present  freedom,  then  as  I  have  pre¬ 
viously  said,  it  is  irrelevant  to  cay  that  God  could,  but 
did  not  prevent  sin.  With  that  understanding  of  the 
subject  the  question  would  be,  Why  did  God  create 
man  a  free  moral  agent  ?  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
when  the  question  of  the  prevention  or  the  non-pre¬ 
vention  of  sin  is  considered,  it  has  reference  to  man  as 
he  was  created,  the  Calvinist  asserting  and  the  Armin- 
ian  denying  that  God  could  have  prevented  all  sin  in 
the  present  moral  system  without  violating  the 
creature’s  freedom. 

Notice  ( 1 )  That  Calvinists  concede  this  is  the 
question  at  issue.  The  following  is  from  the  “Au¬ 
burn  Declaration.”  “  God  permitted  the  introduction 
of  sin,  not  because  he  was  unable  to  prevent  it  con¬ 
sistently  with  the  moral  freedom  of  his  creatures,  but 
for  wise  and  benevolent  reasons  which  he  has  not  re¬ 
vealed.” 

Dr.  Geo.  Duffield  says,  “The  Old  School  have 
charged  the  New  with  believing  that  God  could  have 
prevented  the  existence  of  sin  in  the  world,  but  not 
without  destroying  the  freedom  of  the  human  will  ; 
and  that  sin  is  incidental  to  any  moral  system.  To 
this  the  latter  reply,  that  God  permitted  the  entrance 
of  sin,  but  not  because  he  was  unable  to  prevent  it  ; 
but  for  wise  and  benevolent  reasons  which  he  hath  not 
revealed.”  (2)  Calvinists  ridicule  the  idea  that  God 
could  have  prevented  sin  only  by  creating  man  less 
free.  President  Jeremiah  Day  says,  “  Will  it  be  said 
that  God  merely  permitted  their  hearts  to  be  hardened  ; 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE}. 


363 


or  permitted  them  to  harden  their  own  hearts  ?  If 
this  be  conceded,  it  must  still  be  understood,  that  he 
had  power  to  prevent  this  result.  What  sort  of  per¬ 
mission  is  a  mere  inability  to  prevent  that  which  is 
permitted  ?  ’  ’ 

Dr.  Griffin  thus  speaks  against  the  supposition  of 
Dr.  N.  W.  Taylor.  “Permit  sin!  And  how  could 
he  prevent  it  ?  In  no  way  but  by  refusing  to  create 
moral  agents.  As  well  might  you  talk  of  my  per¬ 
mitting  the  cholera,  because  I  do  not  kill  off  every¬ 
body  that  could  have  it.  Why  dress  up  palpable 
Arminianism  in  such  Calvinistic  drapery  ?  ’  ’  Dr.  E.  A. 
Lawrence  is  equally  explicit :  he  says,  “  God  is  pos¬ 
sessed  of  adequate  power  to  have  prevented  sin,  if  he 
had  chosen  to  do  so.  The  idea  of  permission  implies 
the  power  of  prevention.  It  would  be  preposterous 
to  speak  of  God’s  permitting  what  he  was  not  able  to 
prevent ;  and  we  hold  it  to  be  equally  peculiar  to 
speak  of  God’s  permitting  sin  in  a  moral  system  ;  if 
he  had  no  other  way  of  preventing  it,  than  by  pre¬ 
venting  the  moral  system  ;  as  the  watchmaker  can 
prevent  friction  in  the  wear  of  a  watch,  only  by  not 
making  the  watch.’’ 4 


4  Strange  that  President  Edwards  could  not  see  this  distinction.  The 
following  extract  from  his  defense  of  Decrees  and  Ejection  clearly  shows 
how  he  confounded  the  Arminian  with  the  Calvinistic  position.  “  But  you 
will  say,  God  wills  to  permit  sin,  as  he  wills  the  creature  should  be  left  to 
his  freedom  ;  and  if  he  should  hinder  it,  he  would  offer  violence  to  the 
nature  of  his  own.  creature.  I  answer,  this  comes  nevertheless  to  the  very 
thing  that  I  say.  You  say,  God  does  not  will  sin  absolutely  ;  but  rather 
than  alter  the  law  of  nature  and  the  nature  of  free  agents,  he  wills  it.  He 
wills  what  is  contrary  to  excellency  in  some  particulars,  for  the  sake  of  a 
more  general  excellency  and  order.  So  that  this  scheme  of  the  Arminians 
does  not  help  the  matter.”  “  Works.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  516.  As  we  have  seen, 
this  confounds  all  proper  distinctions.  The  Arminian  says,  God  desires, 
and  works  for  the  utter  extinction  of  sin.  The  Calvinist  says,  God  desires 
and  secures  the  actual  amount  of  sin.  Yet  Edwards  sees  no  difference. 


364  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

(3)  My  position  more  or  less  clearly  conceded  and 
affirmed  by  Calvinists.  Dr.  Albert  Barnes  is  generally 
regarded  as  having  been  a  good  Presbyterian  Calvin¬ 
ist  ;  here  are  his  words  concerning  God’s  disapproba¬ 
tion  of  sin.  “  It  would  not  be  right  for  him  not  to 
show  it,  for  that  would  be  the  same  thing  as  to  be  in¬ 
different  to  it,  or  to  approve  it  ;  ”  speaking  of  “  the 
wrath  of  God  ”  (Rom.  i.  28)  he  says  :  “  We  admire 
the  character  of  a  ruler  who  is  opposed  to  all  crime  in 
the  community,  and  who  expresses  those  feelings  in 
the  laws.  And  the  more  he  is  opposed  to  vice  and 
crime,  the  more  we  admire  his  character  and  his  laws ; 
and  why  shall  we  be  not  equally  pleased  with  God 
who  is  opposed  to  all  crime  in  all  parts  of  the  uni¬ 
verse.”  Dr.  G.  F.  Wright  has  said  Finney  was 
“distinctively  Calvinistic.”  Here  are  his  words, 
“  Certainly  if  he  was  able  wisely  to  prevent  sin  in  any 
case  where  it  actually  occurs,  then  not  to  do  so  nullifies 
all  our  conceptions  of  his  goodness  and  wisdom.  He 
would  be  the  greatest  sinner  in  the  universe  if,  with 
power  and  wisdom  adequate  to  the  prevention  of  sin, 
he  had  failed  to  prevent  it.”  5  Dr.  L.  P.  Hickok  was 
not  given  to  idle  speculations,  nor  did  he  speak  with¬ 
out  due  consideration.  His  testimony,  therefore,  is 
especially  important.  “Theologically,  no  body  of 
divinity  can  be  sound  which  has  running  through  it 
the  doctrine  that  God  wishes  his  creatures  to  sin,  and 

works  in  or  upon  them  to  induce  it . Somehow, 

sin  has  come  into  God’s  system  of  government  against 
his  authority  ;  and  its  continuance,  as  well  as  its 
origin,  leaves  the  sin  to  be  abominable  in  his  sight  : 
and  it  can  not  consist  with  this  that  he  wishes  for  it 


s  “  Gospel  Themes,”  p.  218. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAI,  NATURE. 


365 


and  works  to  secure  it.  All  theorizing  or  teaching 
subversive  of  this  truth,  or  obscuring  its  clearness, 
should  be  rejected  without  ceremony  or  apology,  no 
matter  how  ingenious  the  speculation  or  earnest  the 
teaching  may  be.”  0 

Thus  do  I  show  the  logical  result  of  the  doctrine 
that  God  can,  but  does  not  prevent  sin.  Permission 
implies  not  only  power  to  prevent,  but  also  assent.  He 
who  permits  evil  is  so  far  a  particeps  criminis  to  the 
transaction. 


SECTION  IX. 

Some  Objections  Co7isidered. 

I.  It  may  be  objected  that  my  position  degrades 
God.  If  his  omnipotence  is  limited,  he  can  not  be  per¬ 
fect.  This  is  true  only  of  the  Calvinist’s  conception 
of  God.  If  he  is  determined  to  define  omnipotence  as 
the  power  of  God  which  call  do  anything,  he  has  that 
privilege  :  but  in  that  case  it  is  the  God  of  Calvinism, 
and  not  of  the  Bible,  who  is  degraded.  True,  the 
Saviour,  said  “With  God  all  things  are  possible”; 
but  the  literal  interpretation  is  confined  to  Calvinism 
and  Universalism.  Even  Charnock  has  said  “  The 
object  of  his  absolute  power  is  all  things  possible  : 
such  things  that  imply  not  a  contradiction,  such  that 
are  not  repugnant  in  their  own  nature  to  be  done,  and 
such  as  are  not  contrary  to  the  nature  and  perfections 
of  God  to  be  done.”  7  Accepting  this  definition  of  the 
divine  omnipotence  I  merely  disagree  with  the  Calvin¬ 
ist  concerning  what  things  do  imply  a  contradiction, 

6  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  1873,  pp.  667,  668. 

^  “  Attributes  of  God,”  p.401. 


366  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

what  things  are  “repugnant  in  their  own  nature,” 
and  also  what  things  are  “  contrary  to  the  nature  and 
perfection  of  God.”  I  respectfully  submit  the  ques¬ 
tion  if  sin  is  not  repugnant  in  its  own  nature,  and  as 
such,  is  it  “  not  contrary  to  the  nature  and  perfection 
of  God”?  Moreover,  the  objection  is  fallacious. 
Whatever  limitation  there  is  was  self-imposed.  God 
could  have  refrained  from  creating.  He  might  have 
created  a  race  with  a  much  lower  degree  of  freedom, 
and  so  far,  his  power  would  have  remained  unlimited. 
Hence,  whatever  force  the  objection  has,  directly  ap¬ 
plies  to  the  plan  which  God  adopted.  If  the  Deity 
chooses  “for  wise  and  benevolent  reasons”  to  place 
himself  under  such  limitations,  I  do  not  know  as  the 
Calvinist  has  any  reason  to  object.  In  the  light  of 
this  thought  the  following  quotation  from  Professor 

Henry  Cowles  will  prove  interesting  :  Having  consid- 

% 

ered  the  limitations  under  which  the  Holy  Spirit 
works,  lie  says,  “  Thus  it  appears  that  we  must  essen¬ 
tially  modify  the  very  common  assumption  that  God 
has  permitted  sin  in  his  moral  universe,  having  infinite 
power  to  prevent  it.  This  assumption — ‘infinite 
power  to  prevent  ’ — has  begotten  the  main  difficulties 
of  the  sin  problem.  The  sensitiveness  of  many  good 
men  touching  this  whole  question  hinges  around  this 
point.  It  seems  to  them  derogatory  to  the  infinite 
God  to  admit  any  sort  of  limitation  to  his  power  as 
against  sin  and  as  towards  its  prevention,  or  the  recov¬ 
ery  of  sinners  from  its  dominion.  To  all  such  sensi¬ 
tive  thinking  and  feeling,  let  it  be  suggested  that  it 
is  in  no  sense  derogatory  to  God’s  power  to  say  that 
he  can  not  save  sinners  of  our  race  without  an  atone¬ 
ment,  can  not  save  them  without  their  personal  faith 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURK.  367 

in  the  atoning  Redeemer,  can  not  save  them  without 
their  repentance.  Such  a  ‘  can  not  ’  should  startle 
no  one ;  should  never  be  thought  of  as  involving  any 
dishonorable  limitations  of  God’s  power.  Indeed, 
such  limitations  in  God’s  plans  and  principles  as  to 
human  salvation  are  to  his  infinite  glory.  Nor  is  it 
any  impeachment  of  God’s  power,  or  of  his  moral 
character  in  any  respect,  that  he  should  recognize  the 
nature  of  intelligent,  free,  and  morally  acting  minds, 

and  adapt  his  agencies  upon  them  accordingly . 

With  profoundest  reverence,  it  behooves  us  to  assume 
that  God’s  wisdom  in  managing  this  whole  moral  sys¬ 
tem  is  simply  perfect.  Never  let  us  derogate  from  his 
wisdom  or  from  his  love.  The  Scriptures  represent 
the  Most  High  as  being  keenly  sensitive  to  the  least 
imputation  against  his  justice,  his  wisdom  or  his  love. 
(See  Ezek.  xviii.  2,  3,  23,  32  ;  xxxiii.  10,  11,  17,  20). 
No  similar  sensitiveness  appears  in  his  word  on  the 
point  of  limitations  in  the  line  of  actually  saving  sin¬ 
ners.  There  seems  to  be  never  a  thought  of  its  being 
derogatory  to  God’s  power  to  say,  ‘  It  is  impossible 
to  renew  them  again  to  repentance  ,  ’  or  to  say  that 
sinners  whom  he  labors  and  longs  to  save,  yet  will 
resist  his  Spirit  and  forever  die.”  8 

Throughout  this  discussion  I  have  tried  to  present 
the  plain  teachings  of  the  Word.  Beyond  all  success¬ 
ful  contradiction  the  Scriptures  contain  many  declara¬ 
tions  concerning  the  limitations  of  God’s  grace.  Let 
the  Calvinist  talk  as  he  will,  God  declares  that  his 
grace  was  limited  by  the  perverseness  of  his  ancient 
people.  “  And  now,  O  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and 
men  of  Judah,  judge,  I  pray  you,  betwixt  me  and  my 


*  “Bib  Sacra,”  1873,  pp.  742-744. 


368  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

vineyard.  What  could  have  been  done  more  to  my 
vineyard,  that  I  have  not  done  in  it  ?  wherefore,  when 
I  looked  that  it  should  bring  forth  grapes,  brought 
it  forth  wild  grapes?  ”  (Isa.  v.  3,  4.) 

If  the  reader  will  compare  this  statement  with  the 
record  of  Jesus  weeping  over  Jerusalem,  or  with  the 
words  of  the  Master,  “  Ye  will  not  come  unto  me  that 
ye  might  have  life,”  he  will  see  that  the  Calvinist  is 
over  zealous,  kastly,  the  objection  comes  with  poor 
grace  from  the  Calvinist.  Of  all  men,  he  should  be 
the  last  to  find  fault  with  the  Arminian  doctrine  of 
omnipotence.  Degrade  the  Divine  Omnipotence  ? 
And  pray  tell  me  what  does  he  do  ?  One  would  think 
that  the  Power  of  God  was  of  more  consequence  than 
the  Divine  Veracity  or  Justice.  When  the  Calvinist 
shall  have  vindicated  his  theory  against  the  charge  of 
making  God  the  author  of  sin,  the  punisher  of  men 
against  whom  there  is  no  breath  of  evil,  and  the  pro- 
claimer  of  one  thing  and  the  doer  of  another,  then  he 
may  say  with  some  degree  of  fairness  that  this  position 
degrades  the  divine  omnipotence. 

II.  It  may  be  objected  that  inasmuch  as  God  knew 
that  sin  would  invade  his  moral  government,  he  must 
have  preferred  sin  to  the  non  creation  of  man  with  his 
actual  freedom.  If  this  be  true,  the  objector  may  urge, 
then  on  your  own  confession,  God  is  the  author  of  sin, 
for  he  created  man  with  the  full  knowledge  that  sin 
would  occur,  which  might  have  been  prevented  by  the 
non-creation  of  the  race.  This  is  the  same  idea  which 
I  noticed  at  the  commencement  of  this  section.  It 
changes  the  entire  argument.  Instead  of  solving  the 
problem  of  the  prevention  or  non-prevention  of  sin,  in 
and  of  itself,  it  seeks  to  know  why  God  created  man 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE. 


369 


whom  he  could  not  prevent  from  sinning.  It  is  an 
entire  abandonment  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  that 
God  could,  but  did  not  wish  to  prevent  sin  in  the 
present  moral  system.  With  this  understanding  of 
the  subject,  I  have  no  objection  against  answering  the 
question. 

We  do  not  know  all  the  reasons  why  the  Deity 
preferred  to  create  a  race  of  free  creatures  with  the 
(pure)  certainty  that  sin  would  result,  rather  than  to 
refrain  from  creating,  or  to  create  a  lower  order  of  free 
creatures.  That  he  has  done  so,  is  to  me  a  fact  beyond 
all  successful  questioning  :  hence  it  must  have  been 
for  the  best.  But  if  reasons  are  sought,  the  following 
suppositions  are,  to  me,  more  than  probable. 

( 1 )  The  moral  government  of  God  does  not  demand 
perfection.  That  of  course,  should  be  its  aim,  but  if 
it  can  not  be  secured,  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
attempt  should  be  abandoned.  If,  on  the  whole,  more 
good  can  be  secured  by  such  a  government  than  by  no 
government,  even  human  reason  justifies  the  attempt. 
This  is  the  case  with  the  present  moral  system.  The 
Divine  Mind  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning.  He 
knows  that  notwithstanding  the  sin  which  can  not  be 
prevented,  the  ultimate  amount  of  good  will  far  exceed 
the  ultimate  amount  of  evil,  and  hence  it  is  better  to 
have  created,  than  to  have  refrained  from  creating. 

(2 )  In  the  light  of  this  remark  it  is  easy  to  see  the 
probable  reason  why  God  created  the  race  with  so 
large  a  degree  of  freedom.  A  low  degree  of  creatural 
freedom  necessarily  means  a  low  degree  of  creatural 
righteousness.  Rightness  or  holiness  can  not  be  cre¬ 
ated.  It  is  a  matter  of  choice.  He  who  has  been 
created  perfectly  symmetrical,  every  faculty  in  proper 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


relation,  or  adjustment  with  every  other  faculty,  every 
passion,  every  inclination  directed  toward  that  which 
is  true,  beautiful  and  good,  is  not  righteous  in  the 
proper  acceptation  of  the  term.  That  which  he  is 
reflects  the  goodness  and  wisdom  of  his  Maker  :  he 
may  be  admired  for  what  he  is,  but  he  can  not  be  virt¬ 
uous  until  he  deliberately  chooses  his  Creator’s  will 
as  his  own  :  consequently  if  the  creature  has  little 
responsibitity  he  can  not  acquire  much  virtue.  The 
larger  the  freedom,  therefore,  the  greater  are  the  heights 
of  nobility  to  which  the  soul  may  aspire  :  hence  the 
Divine  Love  is  more  highly  honored  by  the  worship  of 
creatures  of  exalted  intelligence  than  by  those  whose 
freedom  is  only  a  little  above  the  brute  creation.  The 
following  from  Dr.  Dorner  is  admirable:  “We  must 
judge,  therefore,  that  the  divine  omnipotence  by  the 
mightiness  of  its  working  brings  into  existence  free 
beings  capable  of  resisting  its  will  ;  because,  unless 
they  are  able  freely  to  resist,  they  will  not  be  able 
freely  to  surrender  themselves,  and  unless  they  freely 
surrender  themselves,  they  can  not  be  regarded  by  God 
as  a  new  and  valuable  good.  If  we  acknowledge  this 
to  be  the  nature  of  the  freedom  conferred  on  man,  and 
assume  that  God  designs  to  establish  a  free,  ethical 
cosmos,  a  cosmos  of  love,  a  divine  family  ;  we  must 
also  concede  the  necessity  of  his  entering  into  a  rela¬ 
tion  of  reciprocity  to  man,  for  love  without  reciprocity 
does  not  deserve  the  name.” 

Again,  he  says,  “  By  creating  man  a  free,  that  he 
might  be  a  moral,  being,  God  has  brought  into  exist¬ 
ence  a  being,  in  a  certain  sense  of  like  iWure  with 
himself,  which  as  such  is  capable  of  resisting  him. 
Such  resistance  can  never  be  overcome  by  mere  force. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


371 


Indeed,  God  would  contradict  himself  were  he  to 
attempt  a  compulsory  vanquishmeut  of  human  oppo¬ 
sition.  Having  made  man  free,  he  must  suffer  him  to 
use  his  freedom,  even  when  the  use  is  abuse.  He 
may  annihilate  him  ;  but  he  can  not  will  his  existence 
as  free  whilst  annihilating  his  freedom.  This  is  the 
secret  of  our  immense  responsibility  for  the  use  of  free¬ 
dom.  Here  is  the  root  of  the  sense  of  guilt.”  9  Dr. 
Samuel  D.  Cochran  says,  “  God’s  design  in  constitut¬ 
ing  them  was  not  that  they  should  sin,  and  suffer 
either  the  natural  or  the  retributory  consequence  of  so 
doing,  but  that  they  should  obey  his  law  and  experi¬ 
ence  the  blessed  consequences,  both  natural  and  remun- 
eratory,  of  so  doing.”  1 

In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to  notice  the  state¬ 
ment  of  Dr.  McCabe  that  “  No  consideration  whatever 
could  justify  infinite  goodness  in  creating  a  soul  that 
God  foreknew  would  be  wretched  and  suffer  forever.” 
Unless  Dr.  McCabe  adopts  the  doctrine  of  Creationism 
he  needs  to  be  reminded  that  souls  are  created  through 
the  complex  workings  of  natural  laws.  If  God 
should  adopt  and  consistently  follow  Dr.  McCabe’s 
postulate,  human  freedom  would  be  seriously  impaired. 
If,  as  he  grants,  God  ‘  ‘  could  not  consistently  have 
created  a  race  of  free  moral  beings  such  as  man” 
without  providing  a  Saviour,  sin  as  a  contingent  fact 
must  have  been  foreseen.  Such  a  divine  foresight 
justifies  us  in  believing  that  God  has  not  fundament¬ 
ally  erred  in  his  estimate  of  the  abuse  of  freedom 
which  lead/s  to  eternal  ruin.  III.  It  is  more  than 
merely  supposable  that  the  present  moral  system  is  the 

9  “Bib.  Sac.,”  1879,  pp.  54,  55. 

1  “  The  Moral  System  and  the  Atonement.” 


372  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

first  of  a  series.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  reasonable  to  infer 
that  the  history  of  our  race,  its  fall,  the  Incarnation 
and  Atonement,  will  be  used  as  great  moral  motives  to 
maintain  the  purity  of  future  systems.2  Viewed  in 
this  light  the  difficulties  pertaining  to  the  subject  are 
considerably  decreased.  The  attempt  of  God  which 
now  looks  like  a  failure  may  terminate  in  triumph.  If 
the  Calvinist  seeks  to  vindicate  his  position  by  indefi¬ 
nitely  postponing  the  solution,  he  certainly  can  not 
complain  if  his  opponent  adopts  the  same  method. 
The  radical  difference  between  the  two  solutions  is  at 
once  apparent.  Nor  is  this  position  at  all  novel.  Dr. 
Bellamy  asks,  ‘  ‘  How  know  we  if  God  thinks  it  best 
to  have  a  larger  number  of  intelligences  to  behold  his 
glory  and  to  be  happy  with  him,  but  that  he  judges 
it  best  not  to  bring  them  into  existence  till  the  present 
grand  drama  shall  be  finished  at  the  day  of  judgment? 
That  they  may,  without  sharing  the  hazard  of  the 
present  confused  state  of  things,  reap  the  benefit  of 
the  whole  through  eternal  ages ;  whilst  angels  and 
saints  may  be  appointed  their  instructors  to  lead  into 
the  knowledge  of  God’s  ways  to  his  creatures,  and  of 
all  their  ways  to  him  from  the  time  of  Satan’s  revolt 
in  heaven  to  the  final  consummation  of  all  things. 
And  as  the  Jewish  dispensation  was  introductory  and 
preparatory  to  the  Christian,  so  this  present  universe 
may  be  introductory  and  preparatory  to  one  after  the 
day  of  judgment,  almost  infinitely  larger.”  3 

2  For  an  interesting  discussion  of  the  question  of  a  plurality  of  in¬ 
habited  worlds,  see  Townsend’s  “  The  Arena  and  The  Throne.”  Also  Bib. 
Sac.,  1873,  p.  75S. 

3  As  quoted  in  “  Law  and  Penalty  Endless.”  See  also  Beecher’s  “  Con¬ 
flict  of  Ages.” 


CHAPTER  II. 

Calvinism  Contradicts  Conscience. 

“Foreordination  of  some  men  to  everlasting  life, 
and  of  others  to  everlasting  death,  and  preterition  of 
all  the  non-elect  (including  the  whole  heathen  world), 
are  equally  inconsistent  with  a  proper  conception  of 
divine  justice,  and  pervert  it  into  an  arbitrary  par¬ 
tiality  for  a  small  circle  of  the  elect,  and  an  arbitrary 
neglect  of  the  great  mass  of  men.” — Rev.  Philip 
S chaff,  D.  D. 


373 


CHAPTER  II. 


Calvinism  Contradicts  Conscience. 

Sin  exists.  This  is  as  God  desires,  for,  being  om¬ 
nipotent,  he  doeth  all  things  according  to  his  will. 
Such  is  the  logic  of  Calvinism.  Its  language  is  equally 
explicit.  Sin  seems  to  be  one  of  the  corner-stones  of 
the  system.  If  this  assertion  is  considered  too  strong 
by  the  average  reader,  he  will  please  recall  a  few  of 
the  many  Calvinistic  gems  which  have  been  polished 
by  the  master  workmen. 

Bates  says,  sin  was  permitted  by  God  “as  a  fit 
occasion  for  the  more  glorious  discovery  of  his  attri¬ 
butes.”  The  learned  Charnock  affirms  that  “God 
willed  sin,  that  is,  he  willed  to  permit  it,  that  he 
might  communicate  himself  to  the  creature  in  the 
most  excellent  manner.”  Toplady  says  God  per¬ 
mitted  the  fall  of  “  our  first  parents . having 

purposed  to  order  it  to  his  own  glory.”  Hopkins  de¬ 
clares  that  “  sin  and  misery . are  necessary  in 

the  best  system  to  accomplish  the  greatest  good,  the 
most  important  and  best  ends.”  Dr.  Alexander  says 
sin  was  permitted  in  crder  “  that  God  might  have  an 
opportunity  of  manifesting  his  own  glory  to  all  intelli¬ 
gent  creatures  niore  conspicuously.”  Edwards  has 
the  following,  “  We  little  consider  how  much  the  sense 
of  good  is  heightened  by  the  sense  of  evil,  both  moral 
and  natural.  As  it  is  necessary  that  there  should  be 

374 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


375 


evil,  because  the  display  of  the  glory  of  God  could  not 
but  be  imperfect  and  incomplete  without  it,  so  evil  is 
necessary  in  order  to  the  highest  happiness  of  the 
creature,  and  the  completeness  of  that  communication 
of  God,  for  which  he  made  the  world.”  1 

Dr.  Hodge  declares  that  sin  is  permitted  because 
“  higher  ends  will  be  accomplished  by  its  admission 
than  by  its  exclusion.”  2 

It  is  not  necessary  to  adduce  further  proof.  It  is 
incontestably  certain  that  Calvinists  have  always  made 
much  of  sin  :  have  always  regarded  it  as  the  means  by 
which  God  reveals  his  glory  to  the  world.  Is  that 
glory  worthy  of  the  adoration  of  the  universe  ?  In 
that  same  proportion  is  the  importance  of  sin  :  for  as 
Toplady  says,  “  Without  creation  no  creatures,  with¬ 
out  creatures,  no  sin.” 

I  shall  now  attempt  to  show  that  these  affirma¬ 
tions  are  unequivocally  condemned  by  the  funda¬ 
mental  utterances  of  conscience. 


SECTION  i. 

♦ 

Calvinism  Denies  the  Truthfulness  of  Remorse. 

Wishing  to  confront  Calvinism  with  the  real  utter¬ 
ances  of  man’s  moral  nature  I  shall  submit  the  follow¬ 
ing  incident — similar  ones  are  constantly  occurring — 
which  took  place  at  the  Illinois  State  Prison,  Joliet, 
August  7,  1883.  A  convict  named  George  Kellogg 
‘  ‘  was  employed  on  the  Ashley  &  Company  wire  con- 


1  “Works,”  Vol.  II.,  p.  517. 

2  “  Theology,”  Vol.  I.,  p.  547. 


376  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

tract,  and  ran  one  of  the  machines  for  drawing  wire 
into  smaller  sizes.  The  machine  revolves  at  a  high 
rate  of  speed,  and  draws  the  wire  with  great  force. 
Kellogg  picked  up  one  of  the  loops  from  the  coil  of 
wire  that  he  was  feeding  and  tossing  it  over  his  neck 
was  drawn  down  to  the  block  instantly  with  terrible 
force.  The  convict  who  was  at  the  machine  next  to 
him,  and  to  whom  he  had  said  good-by,  stopped  the 
machine  as  quickly  as  possible,  but  the  wire  was  im¬ 
bedded  far  into  the  flesh  around  the  suicide’s  neck 
and  had  to  be  filed  off.  ....  Just  before  commit¬ 
ting  the  act,  he  went  to  his  keeper  and  told  him  that  he 
wanted  to  see  the  warden,  and  being  told  that  he  was 
absent,  replied,  ‘  Well,  I  wanted  to  make  a  confession 
to  him.  I  am  the  man  that  committed  the  double 
murder  at  Atlanta,  Ill.,’  and  turning,  he  walked  back 
to  his  machine  and  threw  the  fatal  coil  about  his  neck. 
.  ...  In  his  cell  he  left  an  ante-mortem  statement 
addressed  to  Chaplain  Rutledge,  saying,  ‘  I  have  been 
treated  well  in  the  prison.  I  have  no  malice  toward 
any  one.  I  am  innocent  of  the  robbery  that  I  am  sent 
here  for,  but  it  is  something  else  that  worries  me.  I 
was  raised  a  Methodist,  but  what  am  I  now  ?  I  am 
nothing.  Mv  God,  forgive  me,  and  be  merciful  to  me. 
It  is  more  than  I  have  been  to  myself.’  ” 

Doubtless,  this  man’s  sin  constantly  troubled  him  : 
he  became  less  composed  and  easily  frightened.  More 
than  ever  he  saw  the  enormity  of  the  sin,  and  hence 
the  sense  of  his  guilt  was  constantly  increasing.  Ah  ! 
wretched  man  ;  “  thou  art  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and 
in  the  bond  of  iniquity.”  Remorse  is  at  work.  Thou 
art  now  before  the  judgment  seat  of  the  Almighty 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


377 


forever  condemned  for  doing  that  which  is  an  eternal 
wrong.3 

But  what  is  remorse,  and  what  does  it  say  ?  Re¬ 
morse  is  the  lash  of  conscience.  It  is  the  sting  of  con¬ 
scious  guilt.  It  is  self-loathing.  It  makes  what  Byron 
calls  “a  hell  in  man.”  Its  language  is  too  plain 
to  be  misunderstood.  It  says  to  the  soul,  “  Thou  art 
guilty.”  The  man  may  deny  it  before  his  fellows, 
but  to  himself,  he  says,  “True,  true,  for  I  did  it.” 
While  remorse  can  never  touch  the  innocent,  it  is  a 
constant  companion  of  the  guilty.  This  has  been 
vividly  portrayed  by  Shakespeare  in  Richard  III. : 

“  O  coward  conscience,  how  dost  thou  afflict  me  ! 

The  lights  burn  blue. — It  is  now  dead  midnight. 

Cold,  fearful  drops  stand  on  my  trembling  flesh. 

What  do  I  fear?  Myself?  There’s  none  else  by  ! 

Richard  loves  Richard  ;  that  is,  I  am  I. 

Then  fly.  What,  from  myself?  Great  reason  ;  why  ? 

Lest  I  revenge.  What !  myself  upon  m3Tself  ? 

I  love  myself.  Wherefore?  for  any  good 

That  I  myself  have  done  unto  myself? 

O,  no  :  alas  !  I  rather  hate  myself 

For  hateful  deeds  committed  by  myself.” 

But  remorse  is  not  simply  the  pronouncement  of 
guilt.  By  no  means.  Guilt  necessarily  presupposes 
that  the  deed  done,  against  which  the  conscience  pro¬ 
nounces  its  judgment,  was  intrinsically  sinful.  Hence 
remorse  says,  This  evil  deed  ought  not  to  have  been 
committed.  On  this  point  there  can  not  be  a  shadow 

3  “The  secret  which  the  murderer  possesses  soon  comes  to  possess 
him  ;  and,  like  the  evil  spirit  of  which  we  read,  it  overcomes  him,  and  leads 
him  whithersoever  it  will.  He  feels  it  beating  at  his  heart,  rising  to  his 
throat,  and  demanding  disclosure.  He  thinks  the  whole  world  sees  it  in 
his  face,  reads  it  in  his  eyes,  and  almost  hears  its  workings  in  the  very 
silence  of  his  thoughts.  It  has  become  his  master.  It  betrays  his  discre¬ 
tion,  it  breaks  down  his  courage,  it  conquers  his  prudence.” — Webster. 


378  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

of  doubt.  Remorse  is  meaningless,  nay,  it  is  a  psy¬ 
chological  delusion,  if  it  does  not  signify  that  the 
deed  for  which  the  soul  is  tortured,  should  never  have 
been  committed.  Rev.  Joseph  Cook  in  speaking  of 
the  bliss  or  the  pain  which  inevitably  results  from 
doing  right  or  wrong,  and  which  is  “  capable  of  being 
at  its  height,  the  aeutest  known  to  the  soul,”  says  that 
the  former  arises  ‘  ‘  when  what  ought  to  be  has  been 
done,  and  the  latter  when  what  ought  not.”  4 

But  this  brings  us  face  to  face  with  Calvinism.  Of 
a  given  sin,  the  soul  under  the  remorse  of  conscience 
says,  I  ought  not  to  have  done  it.  Calvinism  answers, 
Nay,  you  ought.  That  which  you  have  done,  was 
decreed,  was  permitted  by  God  for  his  glory.  He 
permits  nothing  without  design.  Sin  is  the  necessary 
means  of  displaying  the  Divine  glory  :  hence  your 
sin  was  included,  and  is  as  God  desired,  for  having 
all  power  he  will  certainly  secure  his  desires. 

Now  if  the  reader  is  disposed  to  be  indignant,  I 
respectfully  request  him  to  direct  his  indignation 
against,  not  the  writer,  but  the  system  under  exami¬ 
nation.  In  previous  pages  I  have  carefully  quoted 
the  exact  language  of  eminent  Calvinists.  I  have  not 
interpreted  them  according  to  my  ideas,  but  have 
allowed  them  to  speak  for  themselves.  I  kindly  insist 
that  the  reader  shall  do  the  same.  No  excuse  of  the 
reader,  no  evasion  of  the  Calvinist  will  be  permitted. 
The  issue  has  been  clearly  and  fairly  made,  and  the 
verdict  must  be  according  to  the  principles  of  fairness. 
Unless  Calvinists  write  according  to  the  teachings  of 
Machiavel,  they  must  mean  what  they  say.  Such 
being  the  actual  fact,  they  must  here  suffer  a  crushing 


4  Lect.  “  Unexplored  Remainders  in  Conscience.” 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


379 


defeat.  Can  there  be  a  palliative  excuse  ?  None 
whatever.  The  decrees  relate  to  all  events  :  these 
decrees  are  one  purpose  :  all  things  are  thus  decreed, 
and  take  place  as  God  wills.  This  is  the  logic  of  Cal¬ 
vinism.  Now  for  a  few  more  quotations.  Dr.  Tim¬ 
othy  Dwight  says,  “All  things,  both  beings  and 
events,  exist  in  exact  accordance  with  the  purposes, 
pleasure,  or  what  is  commonly  called,  The  Decrees  of 
God.  ’  ’  Hopkins  says,  ‘ ‘  There  can  nothing  take  place 
under  the  care  and  government  of  an  infinitely  power¬ 
ful,  wise  and  good  Being  that  is  not  on  the  whole 
wisest  and  best.”  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  says,  “If, 
therefore,  sin  occurs,  it  was  God’s  design  that  it 
should  occur.”  The  following  was  taught  the  author 
in  a  certain  orthodox  Congregational  Theological  Sem¬ 
inary.  For  clearness  and  consistency  these  points 
equal  those  of  Calvin.  They  are  entitled  “  God’s 
connection  with  Sin.  ( i)  He  forbids  it.  (2)  He 
hates  it.  (3)  Punishes  those  guilty  of  it.  (4)  Ear¬ 
nestly  desires  that  men  shall  not  be  guilty  of  it.  (5) 
He  decrees  sin.  (6)  He  so  constitutes  and  circum¬ 
stances  men  that  they  certainly  will  sin.  (7)  He 
makes  sin  the  means  by  which  he  exhibits  his  own 
perfections  in  their  most  glorious  display.  (8)  God 
displays  His  glory  through  the  pardon  of  sin  and  the 
salvation  of  the  sinner.  (9)  For  aught  we  know  this 
moral  system  in  which  we  live  answers  the  end  of 
manifesting  God’s  declarative  glory  through  the  free 
agency  of  his  creatures,  as  completely  as  any  system 
that  could  be  devised.” 

Certainly,  these,  together  with  the  previous  quota¬ 
tions,  are  sufficient  to  convince  even  the  most  incredu¬ 
lous  that  as  a  theological  system  Calvinism  demands 


380  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

the  existence  of  sin.  Remorse,  on  the  contrary,  af¬ 
firms  that  sin  ought  not  to  be.5 

SECTION  11. 

Calvinism  Co?itradicts  the  Ought  of  Co7iscie?ice. 

Remorse  is  the  last  stage  in  the  analysis  of  con¬ 
science.  I  examined  it  first  because  of  its  clear  and 
unimpeachable  testimony.  It  speaks  in  no  uncertain 
sound,  and  its  language  is  the  same  the  world  over. 
“  No  king  can  look  it  out  of  countenance,  or  warrior 
conquer  it.  How  accurately  and  impartially  it  judges  ! 
It  masters  completely  the  man  of  guilt,  holding  him 
down,  grinding  him  down,  overawing  and  overwhelm¬ 
ing  him.”  6 

Had  I  merely  said  that  conscience  condemns  Cal¬ 
vinism,  the  friends  of  the  system  might  have  replied, 
That  is  a  matter  of  individual  experience.  It  is  the 
fault  of  your  conscience,  not  of  the  system.  This 
however  can  not  be  maintained.  Remorse  is  of  uni¬ 
versal  application.  That  which  it  always  condemns 
is  fundamentally  wrong.  It  unequivocally  and  for¬ 
ever  affirms  that  sin  ought  not  to  be.  We  will  now 
turn  our  attention  to  the  .second  step  in  this  moral 
analysis. 

Calvinism  affirms  that  the  glory  of  God  demands 
the  existence  of  sin.  Says  Hodge,  “Sin,  therefore, 
according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  permitted,  that  the  jus¬ 
tice  of  God  may  be  known  in  its  punishment  and  his 

5  “  Is  sin  permitted  as  a  dragooning- process,  to  eventuate  in  good  at 
last  ?  No  :  for  then  sin  ought  to  be  ;  and  conscience  affirms  that  it  ought 
not  to  be.  Is  sin  the  necessary  means  of  the  greatest  good  ?  No  :  for  the 
same  reason.”  Cook’s  “  Transcendentalism.”  p.  184. 

6  Townsend’s  “  Credo.” 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


381 


grace  in  its  forgiveness.  And  the  universe,  without 
the  knowledge  of  these  attributes,  would  be  like  the 
earth  without  the  light  of  the  sun.”  7 

Dr.  Griffin  says,  “  Had  there  been  no  sin  the  uni¬ 
verse  would  have  lost  all  the  glorious  results  of  re¬ 
demption,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  great  end 
for  which  God  built  the  universe;”  again  he  says, 
“Without  sin  and  the  work  of  redemption,  all  the 
displays  of  God  which  belong  to  the  present  universe 
would  have  been  lost.”  8 

But  what  says  conscience  ?  This  is  the  crucial 
question,  and  I,  for  one,  am  perfectly  willing  to  abide 
by  its  decision.  Beyond  all  controversy,  conscience 
has  to  do  with  the  rightness  or  wrongness  of  motives. 
Of  the  acts  of  two  persons  conscience  affirms  that 
those  of  the  first  were  right,  and  those  of  the  second 
wrong,  because  the  motives  or  intentions  were  right  or 
wrong.  Again,  it  is  equally  clear  that  of  these  given 
motives,  conscience  affirms  that  the  first  class  ought 
to  have  been  executed,  while  of  the  second  class  it  no 
less  emphatically  declares  the  contrary. 

The  ought  of  conscience  is  imperative.  It  com¬ 
mands  every  person  to  do  the  right.  Of  a  certain  act 
it  says  with  no  faltering  tone,  This  is  your  duty  :  you 
must  do  it.  As  Kant  has  eloquently  said,  “Duty! 
thou  great,  sublime  name  !  thou  dost  not  insinuate 
thyself  by  offering  the  pleasing  and  the  popular,  but 
thou  requirest  obedience.”  The  ought  of  conscience 
outweighs  all  other  considerations.  If  men  would 
only  allow  its  mandates  an  impartial  hearing,  and  then 
act  accordingly  the  desert  would  indeed  blossom  as 


7  “  Theology,”  Vol.  I.,  p.  435. 

8  ”  Divine  Efficiency,”  p.  195. 


382  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

the  rose.  The  dreams  of  the  ages  would  be  more 
than  realized  under  the  universal  reign  of  the  Prince 
of  Peace. 

The  ought  of  conscience  imperatively  demands  the 
performance  of  the  right :  hence  the  universal  obliga¬ 
tion  to  do  right :  consequently,  if  all  men  were  to  meet 
this  obligation,  if  all  men  were  to  fulfill  this  righteous 
requirement,  there  could  be  no  sin.  But  the  non-ex¬ 
istence  of  sin  necessarily  means  the  abridgment  of 
the  Divine  glory  according  to  the  Calvinistic  idea  of 
glory.  Therefore,  conscience  is  directly  at  war  with 
its  Maker.  Calvinism  affirms  that  God’s  glory  and 
honor  are  greatly  enhanced  by  the  existence  of  sin. 
Conscience,  on  the  contrary,  would  rob  God  of  this 
glory  and  honor  by  imperatively  commanding  all  men 
to  do  that  which  would  make  sin  an  impossibility. 
What  is  the  matter?  Are  we  to  understand  that  God 
says  one  thing  on  the  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart,  which 
he  fundamentally  contradicts  in  his  written  revelation  ? 
Are  we  to  believe  that  God  cares  more  for  display  than 
or  a  me  ek  and  holy  heart,  a  pure  and  a  contrite  spirit  ? 
Let  Calvinists  say  this  if  they  so  think,  but  I  am  of 
the  opinion  that  all  such  reasoning  which  necessitates 
these  questions  dishonors  him,  “the  high  and  lofty 
One  who  inhabiteth  eternity,  whose  name  is  Holy,” 
and  who  has  said  “  I  dwell  in  the  high  and  holy  place, 
with  him  also  that  is  of  a  contrite  and  humble  spirit, 
to  revive  the  spirit  of  the  humble,  and  to  revive  the 
heart  of  the  contrite  ones.  ”  No:  the  trouble  is  not 
with  the  Bible,  nor  with  man’s  moral  nature,  for  when 
rightly  interpreted  they  substantially  agree.  The  dif¬ 
ficulty  is  with  the  system  of  theology  which  we  are 
examining.  Calvinists  have  sought  to  vindicate  the 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  383 

ways  of  God.  Forgetting  that  the  Divine  Being  is 
infinite  in  wisdom,  and  therefore  will  provide  legiti¬ 
mate  ways  of  manifesting  his  glory,  they  have  postu¬ 
lated  the  absurd  doctrine  that  he  permitted,  decreed, 
and  therefore  really  desired  the  existence  of  sin,  to  its 
non-existence.  Against  this,  I  cheerfully  put  the 
ought  of  conscience,  firmly  believing  that  it  will  out¬ 
weigh  by  ten  thousand  times  all  of  the  Calvinistic 
literature  of  the  ages. 

At  this  point  it  may  be  profitable  to  consider  a  few 
of  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  it  is  claimed,  teach 
the  general  doctrine  that  God  does  permit,  and  there¬ 
fore  decree  the  existence  of  sin  for  the  manifestation 
of  his  glory.  The  following  texts  are  adduced  to 
support  the  theory,  viz.:  Gen.  xlv.  7,  8  ;  Prov.  xvi.  4  , 
Isa.  x.  5-19  ;  Duke  xxii.  22  John  x.  18  ;  Acts  ii.  23, 
iv.  27,  28  ;  Col.  i.  16,  with  John  i.  3.  9 

The  principle  involved  in  most  of  these  passages 
has  been  fully  discussed  in  previous  pages.  As  a  wise 
Sovereign,  God  sees  the  end  from  the  beginning. 
This  is  so,  not  only  because  he  knows  his  own  plans, 
but  also  because  he  foresees  the  free  actions  of  men. 
He  therefore  restrains  the  wickedness  of  men  so  far  as 
it  is  possible,  and  guides,  or  overrules  the  rest  unto- 
the  furtherance  of  his  holy  purposes.  This  is  the 
Arminian’s  position,  and  consequently  he  is  a  firm 
believer  in  Divine  Sovereignty,  provided  the  doctrine 
is  properly  understood  and  carefully  guarded  against 
Calvinistic  encroachments.1 

There  are  three  passages  in  the  above  list  which 
seem  to  demand  an  additional  examination,  viz., 


9  Taken  from  Griffin’s  “  Divine  Efficiency,”  p.  195. 
1  See  Chap.  V.  Part  II. 


384  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

Prov.  xvi.  4;  Col.  i.  16  and  John  i.  3.  John  and 
Paul  agree  in  asserting  that  all  things  were  made  by 
the  eternal  Word,  while  the  latter  asserts  that  all 
things  were  created  for  him.  But  what  have  these 
passages  to  do  with  the  subject  under  discussion? 
Nothing  whatever.  The  thought  of  sin,  or  of  wicked 
creatures  as  such ,  did  not  enter  into  the  scope  of  the 
apostles,  and  consequently  the  interpreter  must  not 
put  it  there.  This  is  evident  at  a  glance,  for,  reverse 
the  process;  take  the  words  “all  things”  in  the 
widest  meaning,  in  the  most  literal  sense,  and  you 
can  not  escape  the  conclusion  that  the  Logos  is  the 
author  of  sin.  That  Dr.  Griffin  should  have  appealed 
to  these  texts  for  support  clearly  illustrates  the  way 
in  which  not  a  few  of  our  eminent  fathers  interpreted 
the  Bible.  The  other  passage  (Prov.  xvi.  4)  reads, 
“The  Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  himself;  yea, 
even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil.”  Shall  this  be 
literally  interpreted  ?  Manifestly  not ;  the  conclusion 
is  too  dreadful  even  for  the  infralapsarian  Calvinists. 
If  God  hath  made  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil  in 
the  sense  now  understood,  then  the  supralapsarians 
are  right,  and  therefore  men  are  condemned  as  inno- 
•cent.  But  says  Dr.  A  A.  Hodge,  “This  appears  to 
be  inconsistent  with  the  divine  righteousness,  as  well 
as  with  the  teaching  of  Scripture.”  Very  well,  then, 
let  us  agree  that  the  words  were  not  intended  to  teach 
that  which  would  necessarily  follow  if  they  were  in¬ 
terpreted  according  to  our  Occidental  ideas.  What 
then  do  they  teach  ?  As  this  is  one  of  the  proof-texts 
of  the  Calvinists,  I  propose  to  step  aside  and  allow 
those  to  speak  whose  testimony  is  especially  impor¬ 
tant.  The  following  is  from  Professor  Cowles,  who 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


385 


says,  “It  is  doubly  important  to  understand  this 
proverb.  (1)  Because  it  does  teach  a  great  truth  ;  (2) 
Because  it  does  not  teach  a  certain  great  error  which 
has  been  sometimes  imputed  to  it.  The  word  c  made  ’ 
can  not  be  restricted  to  creative  work,  but  legitimately 
includes  all  the  doings  of  God — works  of  providence 
more  specifically  than  works  of  creation.  The'  Lord 
works  all  things  in  the  sense  of  shaping  events  and 
determining  issues  with  special  reference  to  retribution 
for  moral  good  or  evil  done  by  his  moral  subjects. 
The  original  word  rendered  ‘  for  himself’  admits  of 
another  construction  with  this  sense  :  The  Lord  works 
everything  for  its  ow \\ purpose,  i.  e.,  he  makes  results 
and  issues  correspond  to  the  human  agencies  involved 
in  them.  He  makes  the  final  result  of  every  earthly 

life  correspond  to  what  that  life  has  been . The 

sense  of  the  proverb  therefore  is  that  simply  in  accord¬ 
ance  with  the  great  eternal  law  of  fitness.  God  brings 
upon  the  wicked  the  destiny  of  suffering.  There  is  a 
just  and  righteous  correspondence  between  the  moral 
activities  of  his  creatures  and  the  reward  which  a 

just  God  will  bestow  therefor . Unfortunately 

this  proverb  has  sometimes  been  tortured  to  say  that 
God  has  created  the  wicked  for  the  sake  of  punishing 
them,  i.  e.,  in  order  to  secure  the  good  results  of  it  in 
his  moral  universe.  This  doctrine  has  been  made 
specially  objectionable  by  associating  it  with  a  practi¬ 
cal  denial  of  free  moral  agency,  by  assuming  that,  to 
accomplish  his  ends  in  creating  sinners  for  perdition, 
God  holds  them  to  a  life  of  sinning  by  a  law  of  neces¬ 
sity  which  they  can  not  break. 

“  Nothing  can  be  wider  from  the  truth  than  this,  or 
more  repugnant  to  every  sentiment  of  benevolence  or 


386  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  COD’S  WORD 

even  of  justice . We  need  to  distinguish  broadly 

between  God’s  supposed  creating  of  sinners  in  order 
that  they  may  sin,  that  so  he  may  damn  them  for  the 
good  to  come  from  it  :  and  on  the  other  hand,  his 
actually  creating  them  that  they  might  be  obedient 
and  so  be  blest,  and  then  punishing  them  only  be¬ 
cause  they  zvill  not  obey  him,  but  will  perversely  scorn 
their  Maker,  disown  his  authority,  abuse  his  love,  and 
set  at  naught  all  his  efforts  to  reclaim  and  save  them. 
Our  proverb  affirms  that  in  this  sense  God  shapes  the 
destiny  of  the  wicked  to  their  just  doom  of  .suffering. 
When  they  absolutely  will  consecrate  themselves  to 
sinning  and  to  rebellion,  the  only  use  God  can  make 
of  them  is  to  give  them  their  just  doom  of  woe,  and 
make  them  an  example  to  his  moral  universe.” 

In  Lange’s  Commentary  the  passage  is  translated 
as  follows  : 

“Jehovah  hath  made  everything  for  its  end,  even 
the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil.” 

This  is  much  clearer  than  the  common  rendering, 
and  substantially  agrees  with  Cowles.  From  the  Ex- 
egetical  Notes  I  quote  the  following.  “  Vs.  4-9,  God’s 
wise  and  righteous  administration  in  respect  to  the 

rewarding  of  good  and  the  punishment  of  evil . 

Even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil,  i.  e. ,  to  experience 
the  day  of  evil,  and  then  to  receive  his  well-merited 
punishment.  It  is  not  specifically  the  day  of  final  judg¬ 
ment  that  is  directly  intended  (as  though  the  doctrine 
here  were  that  of  a  predestination  of  the  ungodly  to 
eternal  damnation,  as  many  of  the  older  Reformed 
interpreters  held),  but  any  day  of  calamity  whatso¬ 
ever,  which  God  has  fixed  for  the  ungodly,  whether 
it  may  overtake  him  in  this  or  in  the  future  life.” 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


387 


Dr.  Chas.  A.  Aiken,  the  American  Kditor  says, 
“  An  absolute  divine  purpose  and  control  in  the  crea¬ 
tion  and  administration  of  the  world  is  clearly  an¬ 
nounced,  and  also  the  strength  of  the  bond  that  joins 
~in  and  misery.” 

Doubtless  the  reader  perceives  that  the  claim  of  the 
Calvinist  is  not  sustained  by  any  of  these  supposed 
proof-texts,  and  therefore  there  is  no  ground  for  the 
supposition  that  the  ought  of  conscience  is  contradicted 
by  the  Scriptures.  On  the  contrary  they  substantially 
agree  in  affirming  that  sin  ought  not  to  be,  and  conse¬ 
quently  it  can  not  be  true  that  God  desires  it  for  the 
manifestation  of  his  glory. 

SECTION  III. 

In  Denying  the  Ought  of  Conscience ,  Calvinism  Contra¬ 
dicts  the  Divine  Law. 

This  section  involves  a  discussion  of  the  important 
question,  What  is  the  source,  or,  What  is  the  authority 
of  conscience?  It  is  quite  universally  admitted  that 
conscience  is  that  power  of  the  mind  which  recognizes 
moral  judgments.  As  the  will  is  the  soul  choosing, 
so  conscience  is  the  soul  affirming  the  rightness  or 
wrongness  in  motives. 

It  is  also  generally  conceded  that  conscience  is 
susceptible  of  development.  To  a  certain  extent  the 
affirmations  of  conscience  depend  upon  the  individual’s 
temperament,  moral  susceptibility,  early  education  and 
present  environments  ;  hence,  the  different  judgments 
concerning  the  same  act  which  are  often  expressed  by 
those  of  the  same  community.  As  a  rule,  however,  it 
may  be  said  that  these  diversities  belong  to  the  less 
important  duties,  although  at  times  they  may  relate  to 


388  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

the  fundamental  obligations.  Says  Haven,  “  As  to 
the  great  essential  principles  of  morals,  men,  after  all, 
do  judge  much  alike  in  different  ages  and  different 
countries.  In  details  they  differ  ;  in  general  principles 
they  agree.”  2 

Again  :  Conscience  is  not  an  infallible  guide.  It  is 
not  above  error,  and  consequently  it  is  possible  lor 
men  to  do  wrong  conscientiously.  In  such  circum¬ 
stances,  however,  they  are  not  guiltless,  for  the  simple 
reason  they  ought  to  have  known  better.  That  is, 
while  they  are  right  in  following  their  conscience — for 
to  disobey  is  sin — yet  they  are  wrong  in  not  having  a 
more  enlightened  conscience.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
may,  perhaps,  be  granted  that  conscience  is  infallible 
according  to  its  opportunities.  That  it  impartially 
judges  according  to  the  data  furnished  :  that  according 
to  its  light,  its  decision  is  true.3 

These  modifying  thoughts  clearly  understood,  we 
are  prepared  to  answer  the  question,  What  is  the 
authority  of  conscience  ?  Beyond  all  legitimate  doubt 
conscience  is  the  law  of  God  by  which  he  seeks  to 
govern  his  moral  creatures.  The  mandate  of  con¬ 
science  is,  therefore,  the  authority  of  the  Creator. 
What  conscience  says  is  what  God  affirms.  On  no 
other  supposition  can  the  majesty  of  conscience  be 
explained.  We  instinctively  feel  that  the  voice  within 
us  agrees  with  our  Father’s  voice  ;  that  the  ought 
which  outweights  all  human  considerations  must  have 
the  hearty  sanction  of  him  who  is  “of  purer  eyes  than 
to  behold  evil.” 

2  “  Studies  in  Philosophy  and  Theology,”  p.  165. 

3  Probably  in  this  sense  we  are  to  understand  the  words  of  Kant — “An 
erring  conscience  is  a  chimera.” 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE.  5S9 

This  is  so  evident  that  it  is  almost,  if  not  quite  uni¬ 
versally  conceded.  A  few  quotations  from  eminent 
scholars  will  suffice  to  show  the  reader  that  1  have  not 
spoken  at  random.  McCosh  says,  “The  conscience 
declares  that  there  is  an  indelible  distinction  between 
good  and  evil,  and  conducts  by  an  easy  process  to  the 
conviction,  that  God  approves  the  good  and  hates  the 
evil.  The  moral  power  points  to  a  law,  holy,  just  and 
good,  a  law  which  all  men  have  broken,  and  which  no 
nation  shut  out  from  supernatural  light,  and  no  pagan 
philosophy,  have  ever  exhibited  in  its  purity.”  4 

Christlieb  says,  “Now  conscience  is  confessedly 
that  consciousness  which  testifies  to  the  law  of  God 
implanted  in  us  ;  that  moral  faculty  whereby  man  dis¬ 
cerns  with  inward  certainty  what  is  right  and  what 
is  wrong  in  the  sight  of  God  (Rom  i.  32),  and  is  con¬ 
scious  that  the  eye  of  God  is  turned  upon  him.”  5 

The  following  is  from  Delitzsch :  “Conscience, 
therefore,  is  not  an  echo  or  abode  of  an  immediate 
divine  self-attestation,  but  an  active  consciousness  of  a 
divine  law  established  in  man’s  heart ;  for  all  self-con¬ 
sciousness  of  created  natures  capable  of  self-conscious¬ 
ness  is  naturally  at  once  a  consciousness  of  their 
dependence  on  God,  and  a  consciousness  of  their  duty 
to  allow  themselves  to  be  determined  by  the  will  of 
God,  and  consciousness  of  the  general  purport  of  that 
will.”  0 

Wuttke  says,  “  As  the  conscience  is  a  revelation  of 
the  moral  law  as  the  divine  will,  hence  it  never  exists 
without  a  God-consciousness, — it  is  itself,  in  fact, 


4  “  The  Intuitions  of  the  Mind/  '  pp.  419,  420. 

5  “  Modern  Doubt  and  Christian  Belief, ”  p  83. 
g  "  Biblical  Psychology,”  p.  165. 


390  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

one  of  the  phases  of  this  consciousness,  and  is,  per  se, 
of  a  religious  character,  and  is  inexplicable  from  the 
mere  world-consciousness.”  7 

President  Killen,  of  Belfast,  says,  “  The  feeling  of 
accountability — to  be  found  in  every  human  being — 
implies  the  oversight  of  a  God  to  whom  we  are  re¬ 
sponsible.  When  conscience  tells  us  that  there  are 
certain  things  which  we  ought  to  do,  and  that  there 
are  certain  other  things  which  we  ought  not  to  do,  it 
plainly  suggests  that  there  is  a  divine  law  to  which 
we  should  conform,  and  that  we  are  under  the  rule  of 
a  holy  Being  who  rewards  obedience  and  punishes 
transgression.”  8 

The  following  is  from  the  same  Review  and  by  Dr. 
Tyman  H.  Atwater:  “Rightly  understood,  laws  in¬ 
scribed  on  external  nature,  written  on  the  heart  of 
man,  and  revealed  in  the  Word  of  God,  must  harmon 
ize.  They  are  all  from  the  same  infallible  author. 
However  they  may  differ,  so  far  as  they  relate  to  diverse 
objects,  they  are  at  one,  and  utter  one  voice  when  they 
relate  to  the  same  things.  Any  seeming  contrariety 
must  arise  from  misconceptions  of,  or  false  inferences 
from  one  or  more  of  them.  There  can,  therefore,  be 
no  real  antagonism  between  the  normal  conscience  or 
law  graven  on  the  heart  and  that  written  in  the  Re¬ 
vealed  Word,  however  greatly  the  latter  may  out¬ 
reach  and  surpass  the  former.”  In  speaking  of  the 
scope  of  the  judicium  contradictiojiis ,  Dr.  Atwater 
says,  “  Nothing  is  tc  be  accepted  as  the  Word  of  God 
which  contradicts  any  other  unquestionable  truth  of 
sense,  reason,  or  conscience . So  what  clearly 


7  ‘  Christian  E)thics.”  Vol.  II.,  p.  100. 

8  “  Princeton  Review,”  Jan.,  1879,  p.  3. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


391 


contradicts  our  indubitable  moral  intuitions,  as  that  we 
should  do  justly,  love  mercy,  and  walk  humbly  with 
our  God,  can  not  be  recognized  as  from  him.”  9 

Prebendary  C.  A.  Row,  of  Rondon,  has  admirably 
said,  “  The  Being  who  has  formed  man’s  moral  nature 
must  possess  in  himself  all  the  elements  of  that  nature  ; 
otherwise  the  principle  of  self-determination  must  have 
originated  in  something  destitute  of  it,  freedom  in 
necessity,  personality  in  impersonality,  and  the  power 
of  moral  choice  in  necessary  sequence.  Hence,  God 
must  be  a  Being  who  is  capable  of  self-determination, 
must  be  a  Person  :  in  a  word,  must  possess  all  those 
attributes  which  distinguish  a  moral  from  a  necessary 
agent.  Consequently,  in  all  these  respects  our  moral 
nature  is  a  revelation  of  God.”  1 

Doubtless  these  extracts  are  sufficient  to  show  the 
trend  of  modern  Christian  thought  on  this  subject. 
Consequently  the  affirmations  of  Calvanism  concerning 
the  existence  of  sin  are  emphatically  contradicted  by 
the  postulates  of  man’s  moral  nature.  Of  any  given 
sin,  remorse  says,  this  ought  not  to  have  been  com¬ 
mitted.  The  ought  of  conscience  imperatively  de¬ 
mands  the  performance  of  the  right,  and  thus  cuts  off 
the  possibility  of  sin.  The  moral  nature  is  the  voice 
of  God,  and  hence  he  can  not  desire  the  existence  of 
sin  to  its  non-existence  for  the  sake  of  manifesting 
his  glory. 2 

9  Art.  “  Supremacy  of  Conscience  and  of  Revelation,”  pp.  671,  685. 

1  “  Princeton  Review.”  May,  1878,  p.  721. 

2  “If  there  be  any  philosophy,  so  called,  whether  physical  or  meta¬ 
physical,  which  clashes  with  what  men  in  their  hearts  and  consciences 
know  to  be  true — with  what  the  soul  testifies  to  be  the  truth — so  much  the 
worse  for  such  a  philosophy.” — Dr.  George  P.  Fisher. 


CHAPTER  III. 


Calvinism  an  Ally  of  Universalism. 

“Some  men  would  make  sin  a  very  light  thing, 
and  so  count  all  teaching  of  everlasting  punishment  a 
monstrous  error,  wholly  incongruous  with  our  ideas  of 
a  just  God.  Others  would  make  God  the  author  of 
everything,  sin  included,  and  therefore  responsible 
for  all  sin’s  enormity,  and  hence  the  everlasting  pun¬ 
ishment  of  man  an  outrage  cn  justice.  God’s  re¬ 
vealed  word  strikes  away  the  foundations  of  both  these 
philosophic  theories.  It  declares  sin  to  be  rebellion 

against  the  Holy  Ruler  of  the  Universe . It 

further  teaches  that  God  in  no  sense  whatever  is  the 
author  of  sin,  that  he  never  decreed  it  or  encouraged 

it  or  connived  at  it . This  world  of  mankind  is 

not  a  machine  made  to  go  as  it  does  by  God’s  decrees. 
It  is  a  world  of  independent  wills,  made  independent 

in  the  likeness  of  God  at  the  creation . To  say 

that  all  this  was  pre-arranged  and  effected  by  God 
himself  is  to  say  that  his  word  is  all  a  sham,  and  that 
his  expostulations  with  the  wicked  are  all  gross  hypoc¬ 
risy.  God  declares  that  he  wishes  all  men  to  come  to 
repentance.  What  does  this  mean,  if  it  does  not 
mean  that  God  both  has  no  hand  whatever  in  their 
sin,  and  also  has  offered  his  grace  to  all  as  far  as  he 
consistently  could  ?  ’’ — Rev.  Howard  Crosby ,  D.  D. 


392 


CHAPTER  III. 


Carvinism  an  Arry  op  Universarism. 

Iii  making  this  affirmation  I  do  not  mean  that  Cal¬ 
vinism  and  Universalism  have  been,  or  now  are  bosom 
friends.  By  no  means.  The  advocates  of  these  re¬ 
spective  systems  of  theology  have  not  dwelt  together 
in  unity,  nor  have  they  loved  one  another  as  did 
David  and  Jonathan.  In  not  a  few  instances  the 
affirmations  of  Calvinism  have  constituted  the  nega¬ 
tions  of  Universalism.  The  literature  of  the  last 
hundred  years  is  permeated  with  the  protracted  and 
intensely  bitter  controversies  of  these  rival  systems. 

My  meaning  is  this.  In  constructing  a  theodicy, 
Universalism  has  adopted  some  of  the  fundamental 
postulates  of  Calvinism.  To  a  certain  extent  the 
premises  of  both  theologies  are  the  same,  while  they 
fundamentally  disagree  in  their  conclusions.  Univer¬ 
salism  has  flourished,  partly  because  of  the  utterances 
of  Calvinism.  If  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  omnipo¬ 
tence  be  true,  Universalism  is  the  legitimate  conclu¬ 
sion. 

But  it  is  my  profound  conviction  that  both  systems 
are  wrong  :  that  the  truth  is  to  be  found  not  by  deny¬ 
ing  the  sincere  and  atoning  love  of  God  for  all  his 
children,  as  does  Calvinism  ;  nor  by  limiting  the  di¬ 
vine  penalties  and  psychological  tendencies  of  sin,  a<> 
does  Universalism  ;  but  by  combining  these  moment- 

393 


394 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  TAW 


ous  truths  maintain,  as  does  the  Bible,  that  the  lost 
are  those  who  will  not  be  saved.1 

SECTION  i. 

Calvinism  and  U n iversalism  agree  co7icerni?ig  God's 

Power . 

At  this  stage  of  the  discussion  it  is  not  necessary 
to  repeat  the  assertions  of  Calvinism  relating  to  the 
Divine  Omnipotence.  The  reader  is  now  in  possession 
of  such  facts  as  will  enable  him  to  form  an  inde¬ 
pendent  judgment  concerning  the  teachings  of  Calvin¬ 
ism.  If,  however,  he  should  fail  in  any  given  case  to 
see  the  close  similarity  between  Universalism  and  the 
Theology  of  the  Reformation,  a  brief  reference  to  pre¬ 
vious  pages  will  doubtless  be  sufficient. 

(i)  “  God,  almighty  in  his  power  over  mind  as 

well  as  matter.”  This  is  the  language  of  Rev. 
Thomas  Baldwin  Thayer,  whose  work  on  the  “  The¬ 
ology  of  Universalism”  is  generally  regarded  as 
among  the  best  which  the  denomination  has  produced. 
Concerning  this  subject  the  author  says,  “  It  is  impor¬ 
tant  to  observe  the  language  of  this  statement— that 
God  is  omnipotent,  not  only  in  the  natural  world,  but 
also  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  world.  It  is  as  easy  for 
him  to  create  and  govern  a  soul,  as  to  create  and  gov¬ 
ern  a  sun  or  a  planet.  And  it  requires  no  more  effort 
on  his  part  to  discipline  and  save  a  moral  being,  ac- 

i  In  this  connection  I  would  say  to  the  Universalist  reader  that  in 
writing  the  above  I  am  not  unmindful  of  the  latest  and  ablest  biblical  and 
psychological  arguments  by  which  his  doctrine  is  supported.  As  my  pur¬ 
pose  is  to  demonstrate  the  fallacies  of  Calvinism.  I  can  not  fully  discuss  the 
merits  of  Universalism.  That  has  been  done  by  several  recent  works  ; 
e.g.,  Haley’s  “The  Hereafter  of  Sin,”  and  Wright’s  “The  Relation  of 
Death  to  Probation  .  ” 


AND  MAN’S  MORAD  NATURE. 


395 


cording  to  the  laws  of  his  moral  nature,  than  it  requires 
to  control  the  solar  systems,  according  to  the  material 
laws  impressed  upon  them  at  the  time  of  their  crea¬ 
tion.”  2 3 

Dr.  I.  D.  Williamson  says,  “  As  to  the  attributes  of 
God,  there  is  a  like  unity  of  opinion.  All  agree  that 
God  is  a  being  of  infinite  power,  wisdom  and  good¬ 
ness.  No  error  can  enter  into  his  arrangements,  no 
lack  of  goodness  can  mar  his  purposes,  no  failure  can 
defeat  him.  Take  these  simple  ideas  of  God,  about 
which  there  neither  is  nor  can  be  any  dispute  among 
Christians,  and  see  what  they  teach  in  reason,  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  subject  of  destiny.” 

Mr.  Skinner,  in  “  Universalism  Illustrated  and  De¬ 
fined,”  says,  “  The  will  of  God  is  absolute.  The  will 
of  kings  is  absolute  ;  and  God  is  the  King  of  kings 
>  and  Tord  of  lords.  He  does  all  things  after  the  coun¬ 
sel  of  his  own  will.”  Hosea  Ballou  taught  that  “  It 
is  not  casting  any  disagreeable  reflections  on  the  Al¬ 
mighty  to  say  he  determined  all  things  for  good  ;  and 
to  believe  that  he  superintends  all  the  affairs  of  the 
universe,  not  excepting  sin,  is  a  million  times  more  to 
the  honor  of  God  than  to  believe  he  can  not,  or  he 
does  not  when  he  can.”  Mr.  Whittemoresays,  “Man 
can  not  do  what  his  Maker  wills  he  shall  not  do,  and 
he  can  not  leave  undone  what  his  Maker  wills  he  shall 
do.”4 

(2)  The  following  quotations  from  eminent  Cal¬ 
vinists  are  used  by  Dr.  Thayer  as  supports  to  his  doc- 


2  p.  41- 

3  “  The  Philosophy  of  Universalism.”  1866,  p.  11. 

4  From  “  Universalism  Not  of  the  Bible,”  by  Rev.  1).  N.  George,  pp. 
309,  2*4,  215. 


396  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


trine  :  he  says,  “  Dr.  Woods  has  a  good  thing  on  this 
point,  which  deserves  a  place  here  ;  ’  *  this  is  the  doc¬ 
trine  as  explained  by  Dr.  Woods.  “  No  one  can  have 
any -power  except  what  God  gives,  and  there  can  be 
no  greater  absurdity  than  to  suppose  that  God  will 
give  to  any  of  his  creatures  a  power  which  he  can 
not  control,  and  which  shall  in  any  possible  cir¬ 
cumstances,  so  come  in  the  way  of  his  adminis¬ 
tration  as  actually  to  prevent  him  from  doing 
what  he  wills  to  do.  If  he  is  really  omnipotent,  and 
if  all  power  in  creation  depends  on  him,  it  must  be  that 
he  will  do  all  his  pleasure  ;  that  whatever  he  sees  on 
the  whole  to  be  the  best  he  will  certainly  accomplish.” 

Dr.  Thayer  takes  the  following  from  Prof.  Moses 
Stuart,  who  is  speaking  of  those  who  limit  the  power 
of  God  :  “  They  overlook  the  omnipotence  of  that 

Spirit,  whose  office  it  is  to  bow  the  stubborn  will,  and 
soften  the  hearts  of  the  unbelieving.  What  !  are  not 
all  things  possible  with  God  ?  Can  he  not  ‘  make  the 
people  willing  in  the  day  of  his  power  ?  ’  5  Can  not  he 
who  works  in  men,  ‘  according  to  the  working  of  his 
mighty  power  which  he  wrought  in  Christ  when  he 
raised  him  from  the  dead,’  can  he  not  make  the  deaf 
to  hear,  and  the  blind  to  see  ?  Can  he  not  raise  the 
dead  to  life  ?  Has  he  not  promised  to  do  all  this? 
Has  he  not  often  repeated  the  assurance  that  he  will 
do  it  ?  Has  he  not  done  it  in  numberless  instances  ? 
Are  not  ‘  all  hearts  in  his  hand,’  and  so  in  it  that  he 

5  This  text — Ps.  ex.  3 — has  been  pressed  into  the  Calvinistic  service 
quite  long  enough.  It  does  not  teach  the  doctrine.  Dr.  T.  W.  Chambers, 
a  pronounced  Calvinist,  says  the  sentiment  is  true  and  pleasing,  but  is  not 
the  meaning  of  the  words.  “  They  refer  not  to  the  matter  or  agency  of 
conversion,  but  the  cheerful  obedience  which  the  subjects  of  the  priest-king 
renders  to  his  commands.”  “Homiletic  Monthly.”  Vol.  VI.,  p.  648.  See 
also  Cowles  on  “Psalms.”  “Methodist  Quarterly  Review.”  1873,  p.  341. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


397 


can  turn  them  whithersoever  he  will,  even  as  the 
rivers  of  water  are  turned  ?  Can  any  resist  God’s 
will?” 

The  following  from  Dr.  Enoch  Pond  is  regarded 
by  Dr.  Thayer  as  “  conclusive  on  the  point.”  “  The 
question,  therefore,  comes  to  this,  Is  it  impossible  for 
God  to  convert  and  save  all  men  ?  But  in  what  sense 
can  this  be  considered  as  impossible  ?  Is  it  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  nature  of  the  human  mind,  and  with 
the  freedom  and  accountability  of  man  ?  Such  a  sup¬ 
position  is  a  priori  incredible  ;  because  God  made  the 
minds  of  men  as  well  as  their  bodies — made  them  free, 
accountable  agents — and  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would 
give  existence  to  a  being  which  it  was  impossible  for 
him  to  control.  Besides  is  it  not  a  fact  that  God 
does  control  the  minds  of  men,  of  all  men,  in 
perfect  consistency  with  their  freedom  and  account¬ 
ability  ?  I  speak  not  now  of  the  manner  in  which  this 
is  done,  whether  by  a  direct  efficiency  in  view  of 
motives,  or  by  the  mere  influence  of  motives  ;  the 
fact  it  is  done  will  not  be  denied,  except  by  those 
who  deny  that  God  executes  his  purposes  and  gov¬ 
erns  the  world.  The  Scriptures,  too,  by  necessary 
implication,  by  direct  assertion,  and  in  almost  every 
form  of  representation  and  expression  exhibit  the  free 
minds  of  men  as  subject  to  the  control  of  him  who 
ruleth  all.  God’s  control  over  the  free,  responsible 
mind  is  also  exhibited  in  every  instance  of  conversion. 
Every  conversion  which  takes  place  is  the  work  of 
God’s  Spirit,  accomplished  in  perfect  consistency  with 
the  nature  of  the  mind,  and  without  any  infringement 
of  human  freedom  or  accountability.  But  are  not  all 
minds  constituted  essentially  alike  ?  And  if  it  is  pos- 


398  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

sible  for  God  to  convert  one  sinner  in  the  manner 
above  described,  why  not  two  ?  why  not  as  many  as 
he  pleases  ?  why  not  all  ?  ”  6 

SECTION  II. 

Calvinism  and  U?iiversalism  Substantially  Agree  Con¬ 
cerning  the  Good  Uses  of  Sin  and  the 
Denial  of  Freedom. 

Dr.  Thayer  says,  “  If  there  had  been  no  error  or  sin 
in  the  world,  we  should  have  known  nothing  of  Jesus 
the  Christ,  that  loftiest  exhibition  of  perfected  human¬ 
ity,  that  single  bright  star  in  the  mingled  firmament 
of  earth  and  heaven,  whose  light  was  never  dimmed. 

....  And  of  God,  also,  if  there  were  no  sin,  we 
should  lose  sight  of  half  the  glory  of  his  character, 
and  of  the  beautiful  and  tender  relations  which  he 
sustains  to  us.”  Our  author  also  quotes  from  Pres¬ 
ident  Edwards  to  the  effect  that,  all  things  considered, 
it  is  best  that  sin  should  exist.  7 

Ballou  taught  that  “What  in  a  limited  sense  we 
may  justly  call  sin  or  evil,  in  an  unlimited  sense  is 
justly  called  good.”  8  Concerning  human  freedom  he 
says,  “  It  is  evident  that  will  or  choice  has  no  possible 
liberty.”  According  to  Mr.  Rogers  “  The  notion  of 
freewill  is  a  chimera.”  In  speaking  of  God’s  will, 
Mr.  Skinner  says,  “  He  does  all  things  after  the 
counsel  of  his  own  will.  Of  course  when  he  made 

6  Dr.  Thayer  also  quotes  an  extract  from  a  sermon  by  Wesley,  which 
upon  the  surface  seems  to  agree  with  the  above.  Every  Arminian  knows 
that  the  meaning  of  Wesle3T  must  have  been  radically  different  from  that 
of  Woods,  Stuart  and  Pond.  See  “  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,”  1872,  pp. 
644,  645. 

7  Pages  52,  56,  57,  25,  20. 

,,  8  Christian  Spectator,”  1833,  p.280. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


399 


man  and  gave  him  the  power  which  he  possesses, 
he  did  everything  according  to  his  own  will.  It 
will  avail  nothing  to  say  man  is  a  moral  agent ;  for 
why  should  God  give  him  an  agency  which  would 
defeat  his  own  will  ?  This  would  be  planning  against 
himself  Nothing  is  more  evident  than  that  an 
expected  result  of  a  voluntary  act  proves  that  it  was 
desired.”  9 

Speaking  of  sorrow  and  affliction  which  are  in  the 
world,  Dr.  Williamson  says,  “  But  these  have  their 
mission,  and  become,  in  their  turn,  the  occasions  and 
the  sources  of  our  highest  and  most  refined  enjoyments. 
Such  a  thing  as  evil  for  its  own  sake,  evil  not  counter¬ 
balanced  with  corresponding  good,  there  is  not  in  this 
world,  nor  is  there  the  remotest  probability  that  there 
will  be  in  the  future.  ’  ’ 1 

These  extracts  will  suffice  to  show  the  exact  posi¬ 
tion  of  Universalism  concerning  the  omnipotence  of 
God,  the  means  of  sin  for  the  manifestation  of  his 
glory,  and  the  doctrine  of  necessity  in  human  actions. 
“  Thus  the  sinful  actions  of  men,  being  only  the  legit¬ 
imate  effect  of  causes  which  proceed  from  the  author 
of  all  good,  are  not,  as  has  so  often  been  supposed,  an 
evil  of  incalculable  malignity  ;  they  are  only  a  seem¬ 
ing  evil ;  they  are  evil  only  to  our  limited  and  dark¬ 
ened  understandings  :  they  are  evil  only  to  those  who 
can  not  trace  out  all  the  tendencies  of  things,  or  fore¬ 
see  their  final  issue.”  2 

9  “  Universalism  Not  of  the  Bible,”  pp.  214,  309. 

1  “  The  Philosophy  of  Universalism,”  p.  39. 

2  “  Christian  Spectator,”  1833,  p.  279.  An  admirable  expose  of  both 
systems  under  discussion. 


400  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

SECTION  III. 

To  a  Targe  Extent  Universalism  is  a  Reaction 

Aga  inst  Calvhi ism . 

By  this  I  do  not  mean  that  all  Universalists  were 
once  Calvinists,  nor  that  all  Calvinists  are  in  great 
danger  of  becoming  believers  in  the  salvation  of  all 
men.  Nothing  of  the  kind.  Doubtless  there  have 
been,  and  now  are  Universalists  who  always  opposed 
Calvinism.  It  is  also  quite  probable  that  some  of  the 
advocates  of  universal  salvation,  have  been  more  or 
less  friendly  to  Arminianism.  It  is  possible  that  some 
Arminians  have  accepted  Universalism.  Such  facts  I 
desire  to  recognize.  I  have  no  desire  to  exaggerate  the 
defects  of  Calvinism,  nor  hide  those  of  Arminianism  3 
My  meaning  is  this,  Universalism  is  the  natural  re¬ 
action  against  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism.  Nearly 
every  important  error  has  some  truth  which  gives  it 
vitality.  The  truth  of  Universalism  is  the  Infinite 
Love  of  God  for  all  his  children.  This  grand,  Bible 
doctrine  has  no  place  in  Calvinism.  As  there  taught 
it  is  not  even  the  shadow  of  the  truth.  The  divine 
love  is  limited  to  the  “  elect,”  while  the  “  non-elect  ” 
who  are  equally  deserving,  are  left  in  misery  and  eter¬ 
nally  condemned  for  the  rejection  of  that  which  God 
never  meant  they  should  accept. 

Some  men  may  regard  this  as  Scripturally  true,  but 
the  vast  majority  of  mankind  never  have  and  never 
will  believe  the  Bible  teaches  such  a  conception  of  him 
whose  nature  is  declared  to  be  Uove.  In  not  a  few 
instances  the  reaction  has  been  intense.  Misgivings 
have  often  been  keenly  felt.  Doubts  have  crowded 


3  Dr.  H.  W.  Thomas  of  Chicago  favors  Restorationism 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  4OI 

the  mind.  The  faith  of  years  has  gradually  disap¬ 
peared,  and,  as  a  historic  fact,  he  who  was  a  strong 
Calvinist — not  thinking  to  re-examine  his  premises — 
accepts  Universalism.  This  will  now  be  elucidated. 
But  before  showing  whence  many  of  the  leaders  of 
Universalism  have  come  I  wish  to  '  speak  of  the  evil 
effects  of  Calvinism  upon  New  England  Congrega¬ 
tionalism.  Says  the  late  Dr.  W.  W.  Patton,  of  How¬ 
ard  University,  “  The  early  ministers  were  strong  Cal¬ 
vinists  of  the  type  now  known  as  Old  School.  They 
held  ideas  of  the  imputation  of  Adam’s  sin  to  his 
posterity,  of  human  inability  to  all  good,  of  sovereign 
personal  election  and  reprobation,  of  atonement  for 
the  elect  alone,  of  the  nature  of  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  of  the  entire  passivity  of  the  sinner 
in  the  new  birth,  which  now  are  seldom  preached 
among  us,  and  are  held  by  few  if  any  of  our  theolo¬ 
gians,  even  such  as  style  themselves  Calvinists.  There 
was  little  in  the  preaching  of  such  doctrines  to  pio- 
mote  revivals  of  religion,  or  to  secure  individual  con¬ 
versions  -  though  the  grace  of  God  did  secure  these 
results  from  the  accompanying  gospel  truth.  There 
was  much  in  them  to  provoke  controversy  and  to 
secure  reaction  toward  some  antagonistic  system, 
which,  in  the  swing  to  the  opposite  extreme,  was 
likely  to  be  unevangelical.  And  such  was  the  result. 
Rigid  Calvinism  caused  a  revulsion,  which  first  took 
form  as  a  cold  unevangelical  Arminianism,  very  dif¬ 
ferent  from  the  Arminianism  of  the  Wesleys  ;  then 
introduced  the  half-way  covenant,  and  then  developed 
into  Unitarianism.  ”  4 

John  Murray  is  generally  considered  the  father  of 


■i  “  The  I,ast  Century  of  Congregationalism,  pp.  12,  13. 


402  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

American  Universalism.  His  “Life”  informs  us  of 
much  concerning  his  parents  and  early  training.  T hey 
were  Calvinists,  and  young  Murray  was  taught  by  his 
father  “  that  for  any  individual,  nut  the  elect  of  God, 
to  say  of  God  or  to  God,  ‘  our  Father  ’  was  nothing 
better  than  blasphemy.”  The  Sabbath  is  described 

as  “a  day  much  to  be  dreaded  in  our  fatuity . 

the  most  laborious  day  in  the  week.”  At  the  age  of 
twenty-one  or  two  he  was  engaged  in  preaching  as  a 
Whitefieldian  Methodist.  Speaking  of  his  views  at 
this  time  he  says,  “I  had  connected  this  doctrine  of 
election  with  the  doctrine  of  final  reprobation,  not 
considering  that,  although  the  first  was  indubitably  a 
Scripture  doctrine,  the  last  was  not  found  in,  nor 
could  be  supported  by,  revelation.”  Subsequently 
he  was  converted  to  Universalism  by  Rev.  James 
Relley,  of  London.  As  an  advocate  of  this  doctrine 
he  believed  that  a  part  of  mankind  were  elected  to  be 
saved  through  Jesus  Christ  and  to  enjoy  the  Christian 
life  while  on  earth.  The  rest,  while  they  would  suffer 
some  degree  of  condemnation,  would  also  finally  be 
saved.  “  He  retained  high  views  of  Divine  sover¬ 
eignty  through  life.” 

About  the  time  that  Mr.  Murray  arrived  in  this 
country  (1770)  Rev’s  Adam  Streeter  and  Caleb  Rich, 
originally  of  the  Baptist  denomination,  became  pro¬ 
nounced  Universalists  and  preached  in  various  parts 
of  New  England.  5 

Elhanan  Winchester  was  originally  a  Calvinistic 
Baptist.  Describing  his  earlier  views,  he  says  he  was 
‘  ‘  one  of  the  most  consistent  Calvinists  on  the  continent, 
much  upon  the  plan  of  Dr.  Gill,  whom  he  esteemed 


5  “  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,”  1871,  p.  445. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE.  403 

almost  as  an  oracle.”  In  preaching  he  was  very  care¬ 
ful  not  to  invite  all  men  to  come  to  Jesus,  for  “if 
provision  was  made  only  for  a  part,  he  had  no  warrant 
to  call  or  invite  the  whole  to  come  and  partake.” 
This  duty  he  urged  only  on  the  “hungry,  weary, 
thirsty,  heavy  laden,  such  as  were  without  money, 
sensible  sinners.”  0 

Hosea  Ballou  at  an  early  age  joined  a  Baptist 
church  of  which  his  father  was  pastor.  Walter  Bal¬ 
four  was  educated  in  the  Scotch  Church.  Coming  to 
America  he  became  a  Baptist  about  1806,  and  in  1823 
was  a  pronounced  Universalist. 

Sylvanus  Cobb  was  early  educated  under  the  or¬ 
thodox  influence  of  New  England,  but  he  soon  became 
an  ardent  advocate  of  the  doctrine  of  Universalism. 
Dr.  Joseph  Huntington  graduated  at  Yale  College  in 
1762,  and  was  ordained  pastor  of  the  First  Congrega¬ 
tional  Church,  Coventry,  Conn.,  1763  ;  his  work 
“Calvinism  Improved,”  which  was  not  published 
until  after  his  death,  advocates  Universalism.  7 

SECTION  IV. 

As  Universalism  becomes  more  Biblical ,  the  Fundamental 
Doctrine  of  Calvinism  is  De7iied. 

The  Universalists  are  improving.  Of  late  years 
their  peculiar  doctrines  have  not  been  so  dogmatically 
taught  nor  their  philosophical  principles  so  strenuously 
maintained.  8  As  the  harsh  features  of  Calvinism  are 

s  “Christian  Spectator,”  1833,  p.  277.  For  a  description  of  Gill’s  Cal¬ 
vinism,  see  Chap.  IV.  of  Part  II. 

7  See  Note  III.  at  close  of  this  Chapter. 

8  “We  feel  confident  that  the  last  twenty  years  have  witnessed  a 
great  improvement  in  the  devotional  aspects  of  Universalism.”— Rev.  G. 
W.  Whitney.”  “  Universalist  Quarterly,”  1872,  p.  323. 


404  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

disappearing,  there  is  a  gradual  abandonment  of  the 
coarse  statements  of  Universalism.  Hence,  I  shall 
try  to  show  that  Universalism  abandons  its  distinct¬ 
ive  tenet— thereby  becoming  more  Scriptural — in  the 
proportion  as  it  renounces  the  fundamental  principle 
of  Calvinism,  the  Divine  Omnipotence  as  the  prime 
factor  in  the  world’s  salvation.  For  the  following 
extracts  I  am  indebted  to  “The  Uatest  Word  of  Uni¬ 
versalism  ”  which  contains  thirteen  sermons  by  as 
many  representative  Universalist  clergymen.  I  have 
been  much  pleased  with  its  spirit  of  candor  toward 
opponents  and  its  reverent  treatment  of  the  Scriptures. 
Dr.  A.  G.  Gaines  writes  of  “  The  Divine  Nature  and 
Procedure.’’  Speaking  of  God’s  relation  to  sin,  he 
says,  “  Again,  we  infer  from  what  we  know  of  God’s 
holiness,  and  of  his  moral  government,  and  of  the  law 
written  in  the  consciences  of  men,  that  he  hates  sin 
and  can  have  no  concord  with  it,  or  with  the  works  it 

prompts . God  never  planned  it,  nor  did  he 

ever  purpose  aught  that  required  sin  as  a  means  for 
its  accomplishment,  or  that  depended  on  sin  as  a 
means  to  its  end.  Sin  is  of  God  in  no  proper  sense. 
His  whole  relation  to  it,  and  action  towards  it,  is,  and 

ever  has  been  antagonism,  resistance . God  is 

hostile  to  sin  ;  he  has  no  purposes  to  serve  by  it ; 
never  gave  his  consent  to  it  ;  forbade  it  at  the  first, 
and  has  steadfastly  resisted  it  ever  since  ;  and  he  has 
assured  us  that  he  can  never  acce  .t  it,  nor  become 
reconciled  to  it.”  9 

Speaking  of  “  Sin  and  its  Sequences  ”  Dr.  G.  H. 
Emerson  says,  “.  .  .  .  remorse  recognizes  a  responsi¬ 
bility  that  can  not  attach  to  man  :  it  is  the  proclama- 


9  Pages  20,  2i. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


405 


tion  of  the  will  of  a  Higher  Being,  and  it  seems  the 
literalness  of  truth  to  say  it  is  the  expression  of  God’s 
censure.”  1 

The  following  is  from  “Jesus  and  the  Gospel  ”  by 
Rev.  J.  Smith  Dodge,  Jr.:  “  But  sin  is  man’s  specialty  ; 
and  it  is  so  because  man  alone  has  self-determining 
power.  .  .  .  Man  alone  can  choose,  and  therefore  he 
alone  can  resist.  But  when  we  examine  why  man, 
having  the  power  to  choose,  sets  his  will  against  the 
will  of  God  (which  is  the  essence  of  sin),  the  inquiry 
takes  us  into  unsound  depths.”  2 

Elucidating  the  nature  of  “  Repentance,  Forgive¬ 
ness,  Salvation,”  Rev.  E.  C.  Sweetser  says,  “We 
must  work  with  God,  in  order  that  God  may  work 
with  us.  As  to  his  part  of  the  process,  there  is  no 
room  for  uncertainty.  His  grace  is  unfailing.  Where 
sin  abounds,  his  infinite  love  much  more  abounds  ; 
and  whenever  we  choose  to  avail  ourselves  of  it,  we 
shall  find  it  sufficient  for  our  needs.  He  yearns  over 
us  with  an  infinite  longing  for  our  salvation,  and  will 
not  be  satisfied  till  the  whole  human  family  is  perfected 
and  glorified.  .  .  .  So,  although  his  power  to  save  us 
is  contingent  upon  our  voluntary  obedience  to  the  con¬ 
ditions  of  salvation,  yet  in  view  of  all  the  facts  in  the 
case,  we  can  not  reasonably  doubt  that  his  purpose 
concerning  us  will  at  last  be  fulfilled.”  3 

The  following  from  “This  Life  and  the  Next,”  by 
Rev.  J.  C.  Adams,  is  an  admirable  presentation  of  the 
question  under  consideration.  “  If  the  resistance  of 
the  will  to  the  eternal  moral  law  alienates  the  heart 


1  Pages  59,  60. 

2  p.  79. 

3  Pages  hi,  1 12. 


406  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  LAW 

from  God  up  to  and  beyond  the  gates  of  Death,  the 
eternal  laws  of  moral  compensation  will  inflict  suffer¬ 
ing  as  long  as  this  alienation  lasts.  Until  the  will 
consents  to  the  divine  order,  there  is  no  deliverance 
from  the  thralldom  of  retribution.  So  that  if  any  soul 
goes  into  the  future  unrepentant,  we  must  believe  that 
the  progress  of  penalty  and  discipline  goes  on,  at  the 
same  time  that  grace  persuades  and  love  invites,  until 
the  evil  heart  is  overcome.”  4 

The  Philosophy  of  Universalism  is  expounded  by 
President  K.  H.  Capen,  who  declares  that  man  “is 
God’s  child,  and  that  he  has  broken  God’s  law.  If  he 
sins  repeatedly,  he  will  be  punished  repeatedly.  No 
amount  of  penalty  can  destroy  his  freedom.  He  may 
choose  to  sin  as  long  as  he  is  willing  to  take  sin  and 
penalty  together.  But,  whenever  he  shall  be  moved 
to  a  different  choice,  the  way  will  be  open.  .  .  .  We 
hold  that  the  sovereignty  of  God  will  be  completely 
vindicated  in  the  ultimate  harmony  of  the  moral  uni¬ 
verse.  ...  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  man’s  freedom 
may  defeat  the  beneficent  intentions  of  the  Almighty  ; 
for  that  would  be  a  poor  sort  of  freedom  which  practi¬ 
cally  dooms  men  to  endless  sin.  ...  Of  moral  evil,  he 
says,  “  We  not  only  believe  in  the  ‘  exceeding  sinful¬ 
ness  of  sin,’  but  our  nature  revolts  at  it  ;  we  loathe  it ; 
we  feel  bound  to  make  war  upon  it,  to  wrestle  with  it, 
and  to  seek  its  extermination  in  ourselves  and  others. 
We  hate  it,  however,  not  merely  because  it  is  inherently 
hateful,  but  because  God  hates  it,  because  it  is  opposed 
alike  by  his  law  and  his  nature,  of  which  his  law  is  the 
expression.”  5 


4  p.  165. 

5  Pages  253,  254,  265,  266. 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


407 


Rev.  George  Hill  says,  “  All  things  are  possible  to 
God  within  the  limits  of  possibility.  Man  as  such 
must  have  the  attributes  of  his  own  nature,  else  he  is 
not  man,  and  no  question  of  moral  evil  could  arise. 
Within  his  sphere  he  is  free  and  the  arbiter  of  his  joys 
and  sorrows.  All  the  evil  in  the  moral  universe  had  its 
birth  in  the  heart  of  man.  We  can  not  say  that  God 
permits  or  fosters  it  for  a  good  purpose  for  there  is  no 
good  in  it.  We  can  only  say  that  God  hates  it,  and 
opposes  it,  and  would  prevent  it  if  he  could  without 
destroying  the  moral  freedom  of  man.” 

Dr.  A.  J.  Patterson  says  of  man’s  present  condition, 
“  God  does  not  take  pleasure  in  his  falls  and  bruises, 
physical  or  moral.  These  are  incidental  to  his  unde¬ 
veloped  and  imperfect  state.  .  .  .  To  have  made  a  race 
of  beings  that  could  not  sin,  would  have  peopled  the 
earth  with  beings  entirely  unlike  ourselves.  .  .  .  He 
might  have  created  beings  that  could  not  sin,  but  they 
would  not  be  men.”  6 

Dr.  Miner  says,  “It  is  said,  ‘God  can  not  save 
man  against  his  will.’  It  is  equally  true  that  God  can 
not  damn  man  against  his  will.  Salvation  is  a  condi¬ 
tion  in  which  human  powers  co-operate  with  divine 
grace.  The  saving  of  man,  therefore,  is  the  bringing 
of  his  powers  into  such  co-operation.  The  only  thing 
that  makes  salvation  necessary  is  perversity  of  will. 
To  remove  this  perversity  is  to  save.”  7 


6  “  Universalist  Quarterly.”  1878,  1880,  pp.  53,  54,  282,  284,444. 
i  “  Bib.  Sacra,”  1883,  p.  498.  The  distinction  is  radical.  Calvinism 
says  Man  has  no  power  to  resist  God.  This  phase  of  Universalism  affirms 
the  power — carries  it  far  into  eternity— but  postulates  the  final  triumph  of 
Divine  Love.  But  I  can  not  so  interpret  the  teachings  of  Reason  and  Rev¬ 
elation. 


CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 


408 


NOTE  III. 

Possibly  the  reader  is  conservative.  Notwithstand¬ 
ing  the  many  facts  adduced  to  show  that  Calvinism 
has  greatly  aided  Universalism,  he  may  object  to  my 
reasoning  and  affirm  that  I  am  forcing  an  issue.  It 
is,  therefore,  eminently  proper  to  adduce  a  few  addi¬ 
tional  facts  illustrating  how  the  subject  is  considered 
by  those  whose  ability  and  candor  can  not  be  ques¬ 
tioned.  The  following  is  from  Dr.  Fitch  of  New  Ha¬ 
ven  fame,  forming  a  part  of  his  celebrated  “Review 
of  Fisk  on  Predestination  and  Flection.’ ’  Although 
somewhat  long,  it  is  too  good  to  be  abridged.  .  .  . 
The  Universalist  does  not  (if  we  rightly  judge)  de¬ 
rive  his  doctrine  in  the  first  place  from  the  oracles  of 
God,  but  rather  from  the  attributes  of  God.  The  ar¬ 
gument  on  which  he  relies  as  the  real  basis  of  his 
faith  is  the  following :  God,  as  infinitely  benevolent, 
must  be  disposed  to  prevent  sin  with  all  its  evils. 
God  as  omnipotent,  can  prevent  sin  in  all  his  moral 
creatures  ;  God  therefore  will  hereafter  prevent  all  sin  ; 
and  thus  render  all  his  creatures  happy  forever. 

“The  infidel  reasons  exactly  in  the  same  manner, 
and  comes  to  the  same  conclusion.  But,  then,  he  has 
discernment  enough  to  see  that  the  Scriptures  contain 
the  doctrine  of  future  endless  punishment.  He,  there¬ 
fore,  discards  the  divine  origin  of  the  book,  as  incul¬ 
cating  a  doctrine  so  obviously  false,  and  inconsistent 
with  the  perfections  of  God. 

“As  a  specimen  of  atheistical  reasoning  on  this  sub¬ 
ject,  a  friend  has  put  into  our  hands  a  card  engraved 
in  an  attractive  style,  and  said  to  have  been  printed 
in  New  York,  and  extensively  circulated  by  a  club  of 


AND  MAN’S  MORAR  NATURE.  409 

atheists  in  that  city.  It  contains  the  following  words, 

‘  God  either  wills  that  evil  should  exist,  or  he  does 
not.  If  he  wills  the  existence  of  evil,  where  is  his 
Goodness  ?  If  evil  exists  against  his  will,  how  can 
he  be  All-Powerful  ?  And  if  God  is  both  good  and 
omnipotent,  where  is  evil  ?  Who  can  answer  this  ?  ’ 

“  Now  it  is  manifest,  that  these  several  conclusions 
of  the  universalist,  the  infidel  and  the  atheist,  are  all 
derived  from  substantially  the  same  premises.  If  the 
premises  are  admitted  to  be  true,  the  conclusion  fol¬ 
lows  with  all  the  force  of  absolute  demonstration. 
The  premises  are  briefly,  that  the  permanent  existence 
of  evil  is  inconsistent  with  the  goodness  and  the 
power  of  God.  Hence  the  atheist  infers,  in  view  of 
existing  evil  and  the  want  of  evidence  that  it  will  ever 
end,  that  there  is  no  omnipotent,  benevolent  being — 
there  is  no  God.  The  universalist  and  the  infidel 
maintain  the  eternal  existence  of  evil  to  be  inconsist¬ 
ent  with  the  perfections  of  God,  and  hence  infer  that 
ultimately  all  evil  will  be  excluded  from  the  system  ; 
the  one  explaining  away  the  plainest  declarations  of 
the  Bible,  and  the  other  denying  the  divine  origin  of 
the  book. 

“  Here,  then,  the  advocate  of  truth  is  bound  to  show 
that  there  is  a  fallacy  in  these  premises.  Where  then 
does  the  fallacy  lie  ?  The  premises  rest  on  two  attri¬ 
butes  of  God,  his  power  and  his  benevolence.  As  to 
his  power,  the  argument  assumes  that  God  can,  by 
his  omnipotence,  exclude  sin,  and  its  consequent  suf¬ 
fering,  from  a  moral  system.  Those  who  admit  this 
assumption  have  therefore  no  plea  left  for  the  divine 
benevolence,  except  to  assert  that  ‘  sin  is  the  neces¬ 
sary  means  of  the  greatest  good,’  and  that  for  this  rea- 


410  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

son,  it  is  introduced  into  our  system,  and  will  always 
be  continued  there,  by  a  Being  of  infinite  benevolence. 
But  can  this  be  proved  ?  Is  this  supposition  consist¬ 
ent  with  the  sincerity  of  God  as  a  lawgiver,  the  excel¬ 
lence  of  his  law,  the  known  nature  and  tendency  of 
sin  and  holiness,  and  the  unqualified  declarations  of 
the  divine  word,  that  ‘sin  is  the  abominable  thing 
which  his  soul  hateth,’  that  he  ‘  would  have  all  men 
be  saved  and  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,’  etc. 
Can  this  be  consistent  with  his  actually  preferring  the 
existence  of  all  the  sin  in  the  system  to  holiness  in  its 
stead  ?  For  ourselves,  we  must  say,  that  we  regard 
the  success  of  any  attempt  to  make  men  believe  this, 
as  utterly  and  forever  hopeless.  Our  confident  antici¬ 
pation  is,  that  universalism,  infidelity  and  atheism  in 
this  land  and  through  the  world,  will  only  go  on  to 
new  triumphs,  so  long  as  their  overthrow  is  left  to  de¬ 
pend  on  the  truth  of  the  position,  that  God  prefers 
sin  to  holiness,  in  any  of  his  moral  creatures. 

“We  are  thrown  back  then  to  consider  the  other 
branch  of  this  argument,  viz.,  the  assumption  that 
God  as  omnipotent  can  prevent  all  moral  evil  in  a 
moral  system.  Is  not  here  the  fallacy  ?  We  know 
that  a  moral  system  necessarily  implies  the  existence 
of  free  agents,  with  the  power  to  sin  in  despite  of  all 
opposing  power.  This  fact  sets  human  reason  at 
defiance  in  every  attempt  to  prove  that  some  of  these 
agents  will  not  use  that  power  and  actually  sin.  There 
is,  at  least,  a  possible  contradiction  involved  in  the 
denial  of  this  :  and  it  is  no  part  of  the  prerogative  of 
omnipotence  to  be  able  to  accomplish  contradictions. 
But  if  it  be  not  inconsistent  with  the  true  idea  of  om¬ 
nipotence,  to  suppose  that  God  can  not  prevent  all  sin 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE.  4H 

in  a  moral  system,  then  neither  is  it  inconsistent  with 
his  goodness  that  he  does  not  prevent  it  ;  since  sin  in 
respect  to  his  power  of  prevention,  may  be  incidental 
to  the  existence  of  that  system  which  infinite  goodness 
demands.  It  is,  then,  in  view  of  this  groundless 
assumption,  concerning  omnipotence,  that  we  see  the 
reasoning  of  the  universalist,  the  infidel  and  the 
atheist,  to  be  the  merest  paralogism,  or  beggingof  the 
question.  The  utter  impossibility  of  proving  their 
main  principle,  is  so  obvious  that  they  caii  be  made  to 
see  it,  and  we  hope, 'to  acknowledge  it.  At  any  rate, 
until  this  mode  of  refutation  be  adopted,  we  despair 
of  the  subversion  of  their  cause  by  reasoning.  By 
that  mode  of  argument,  which  assumes  that  God  pre¬ 
fers  sin  to  holiness,  the  main  pillar  of  their  conclusion, 
viz.,  that  God  can  prevent  all  moral  evil  in  a  moral 
system,  is  conceded  to  them,  and  thus  they  are  only 
confirmed  in  their  delusions. 

‘  ‘  When  shall  the  defenders  of  the  truth  learn  the 
difference  between  scriptural  doctrines  and  groundless 
theories  ?  When  will  they  see,  that  a  zeal  for  the  one, 
leads  them  to  attach  truth  to  the  other,  and  thus  inad¬ 
vertently  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  worst  of  errors  ?  ”  1 

Speaking  of  the  popular  doubts  concerning  the 
doctrine  of  future  endless  punishment,  Dr.  John  P. 
Gulliver,  of  Andover  Seminary  says,  ‘  ‘  What  then  is 
the  practical  lesson  which  such  facts  a-s  these  teach 
us  ?  It  is  plainly  that  if  we  expect  men,  especially  un¬ 
converted  men,  if  even  we  expect  a  large  class  of  the 
best  minds  among  Christian  men,  to  accept  the  clear 
teachings  of  the  Bible  on  this  subject,  ‘  without  de¬ 
falcation  or  fraud,’  as  the  lawyers  say,  we  must  go 


i  “  Christian  Spectator.”  1831,  pp.  616,  617. 


412  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

back  of  their  faith  in  the  words  of  the  Bible,  and  plant 
onr  doctrine  in  the  deep  soil  of  their  original  moral 
convictions — in  their  sense  of  justice,  in  their  love 
of  law,  in  their  intuitions  of  right ;  in  their  percep¬ 
tions  of  the  absolute  and  unchangeable  necessities  of 
moral  government,  in  their  knowledge  of  the  nature 
of  free,  moral  agency,  in  their  comprehensive  views  of 
God’s  plans  in  permitting  and  removing  sin  and 
suffering.  Till  this  is  done,  the  utmost  which  all 
appeals  to  the  strong  language  of  the  Bible  can  accom¬ 
plish,  will  be  to  produce  a  kind  of  distressing  bewilder¬ 
ment,  and  the  highest  expression  of  faith*  will  be — ‘ I 
do  not  understand  it.  It  is  a  dark  and  horrible 
mystery.’  .... 

‘  ‘  But  the  influence  of  this  confusion  of  thought  is, 
of  course,  much  more  positive  upon  minds  which  have 
never  experienced  the  grace  of  God.  They  have  no 
counteracting  testimony  coming  from  the  daily  com¬ 
munion  of  the  heart  with  a  loving  Father.  They  take 
the  epicurean  dilemma.  ‘  God  either  would  have  pre¬ 
vented  evil  andcould  not — then  where  is  his  powrer  ?  or 
he  could  have  prevented  evil  and  would  not — then 
where  is  his  benevolence  ?  ’  And  they  conclude  from 
it  that  there  is  no  God,  or  that  there  is  no  evil  but  the 
necessary  means  of  good,  and  that  final  good  is  to  be 
educed  from  all  evil.  In  other  words,  they  either  be¬ 
come  Atheists,  denying  the  infinity  of  God,  or  Uni- 
versalists,  denying  the  eternity  of  evil.  Of  the  two, 
it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  Atheist  occupies  the  only 
tenable  ground.  For  he  who  affirms  that  God  can  not 
secure  the  highest  final  good  without  using  evil  as  its 
temporary  means ,  limits  his  power  just  as  truly  as  he 
who  affirms  that  he  can  not  secure  the  highest  good 


AND  MAN’S  MORAL  NATURE. 


413 


without  permitting  evil  as  its  necessary  concomitant . 
The  fact  that  the  means  are  te?nporary ,  while  the  con¬ 
comitant  is  eternal,  does  not  change  the  fact  that,  in 
both  cases,  God  has  been  proved  unable  to  secure  good 
without  any  admixture  of  evil  :  hence,  according  to 
the  epicurean  premise,  he  is  not  omnipotent  ;  hence, 
there  is  no  God. 

“  With  these  facts  before  us,  we  can  not  wonder  if  a 
large  class  of  minds  refuse  to  accept  the  Christian’s 
faith,  if  it  must  be  accompanied  with  the  theologian’s 
doubts  ;  and  have  sought  most  eagerly  for  some  posi¬ 
tion  in  thought  which  should  not  array  the  moral  nat¬ 
ure  which  God  has  given  them  in  hostility  against 
God  himself. 

“All  these  attempts  must,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
have,  as  a  common  element,  the  placing  of  some  limit¬ 
ation  of  some  kind  upon  God’s  power  to  preveyit  sin. 
There  is  no  possible  escape  from  the  epicurean  dilem¬ 
ma  unless  we  assume  that  the  absolute  prevention  of 
sin  by  an  act  of  power  in  a  being  free  to  sin,  is  a  con¬ 
tradiction  in  terms — is  an  impossibility  ;  that  such 
prevention  is  outside  the  range  and  domain  of  power, 
as  much  so  as  the  requirement  to  construct  a  circle 
from  right  angles  would  be.  The  whole  strength  of 
skepticism,  in  all  its  forms  and  degrees,  consists  in 
slipping  in  somewhere,  in  its  reasoning,  the  absurd  as¬ 
sumption  that  God  can  necessitate  the  choice  of  a  be¬ 
ing  endowed  with  freedom  to  choose  uncontrolled  by 
necessity. 

“  On  the  other  hand,  the  whole  force  of  any  argu¬ 
ment  of  Christian  philosophy,  in  vindication  of  the 
present  moral  order  of  the  universe,  will  be  ultimately 
found  in  the  axiom  that  omnipotence  consists  simply 


4 H  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

in  the  power  to  do  whatever  is  in  its  nature  possible, 
not  what  is  impossible.  In  other  words,  there  is  in 
the  whole  argument  the  assumption  that  God  is  only 
bound  to  prevent  all  the  evil  he  can,  and  yet  create  a 
system  which,  on  the  whole,  will  produce  more  good 
than  any  other.  If  a  system  containing  evil,  is  seen 
to  be  better  in  its  total  results  of  holiness  and  happi¬ 
ness,  than  any  system  of  a  lower  grade  which  excludes 
evil,  then  God  is  vindicated.  But  on  no  other  hypoth¬ 
esis  can  such  a  vindication  be  made . The 

fault  must  be  in  our  human  philosophy,  not  in  the 
Divine  theology.  When  we  have  learned  to  give  a 
proper  definition  to  power ,  and  do  not  demand  of  Om¬ 
nipotence  the  performance  of  impossibilities ;  when  we 
have  learned  otherwise,  to  discriminate  between  things 
that  differ,  when  we  have  learned  to  discard  prejudice, 
and  to  subject  all  our  early  theological  notions,  and 
our  habitual  definitions  ol  words,  and  our  .stereotyped 
modes  of  thought  to  the  test  of  reason  and  conscience, 
and  the  teaching  of  God,  the  church  will,  for  the  first 
time  in  her  history,  look  forth  upon  an  unbelieving, 
unconvicted,  rebellious  world,  ‘  fair  as  the  moon,  clear 
as  the  sun,  and  terrible  as  an  army  with  banners.’  ”  2 

The  following  by  Dr.  George  P.  Fisher  is  an  ad¬ 
mirable  presentation  of  the  historic  fact  that  Calvinism 
has  prepared  the  way  for  Universalism  : 

“Strict  Calvinism  was  a  symmetrical  and  coherent 
system.  It  was  constructed  from  the  theological  point 
of  view.  The  starting  point  was  God  and  his  eternal 
purpose.  The  end  was  made  to  be  the  manifestation 
of  his  love  and  his  justice,  conceived  of  as  co-ordinate. 
The  salvation  of  some,  and  the  condemnation  of  others, 

2  An  Introductory  Essay  in  “  Caw  and  Penalty  Endless,”  pp.  14-17,  23. 


u 


AND  man’s  moral  nature.  415 

are  the  means  to  this  end.  The  motive  of  redemption 
is  love  to  the  elect,  for  whom  all  the  arrangements  of 
Providence  and  grace  are  ordered.  The  capstone  was 
placed  upon  the  system  by  the  supralapsarians,  who 
followed  Calvin’s  strong  language  in  the  ‘  Institutes  ’ 
(but  not  elsewhere,  especially  not  in  his  Comment¬ 
aries),  and  made  the  fall  and  sin  of  mankind — like 
creation  itself,  the  object  of  an  efficient  decree — means 
to  the  one  supreme  End  ;  for  if  mercy  and  righteous¬ 
ness  are  to  be  exerted  in  the  salvation  and  condemna¬ 
tion  of  sinners,  a  world  of  sinners  must  first  exist. 

“  There  was  rebellion  against  this  system.  Not  to 
speak  of  the  different  theology  of  the  Lutherans — in 
the  French  Calvinistic  school  of  Saumur,  wherever 
Arminianism  prevailed,  in  the  modified  Calvinism  of 
the  New  England  churches,  it  was  asserted  that  in  the 
‘  intention  of  love,’  Christ  died  for  all,  that  God’s  love 
extends  over  all,  in  the  sense  that  he  desires  them  to 
be  saved,  yearns  towTard  them,  and  offers  them  help. 

“This  mode  of  thought  has  more  affinity  to  the 
Greek  anthropology  than  has  rigid  Calvinism,  or  its 
Augustinian  prototype.  The  teleological  point  of 
view  is  less  prominent  ;  it  stands  in  the  background. 
The  universal  love  and  pity  of  God,  the  broad  design 
of  the  atonement,  are  the  central  points. 

“  The  more  rigid  Calvinism  often  protested  against 
this  modification  of  the  system  :  it  considered  the 
whole  theodicy  imperiled  by  it ;  it  saw  in  it  a  drift 
and  tendency  towards  other  innovations  subversive  of 
the  system.  For  if  this  universal,  yearning  love  is  at 
the  basis  of  redemption,  will  it  not  be  suggested  that 
this  love  will  not  fail  of  its  end  ?  Will  the  heart  of 
God  be  disappointed  of  its  object  ?  Will  the  Almighty 


41 6  CALVINISM  CONTRARY  TO  GOD’S  WORD 

9 

be  baffled  by  the  creaturely  will  ?  If  Christ  died  for 
all,  will  he  be  ‘  satisfied  7  with  anything  short  of  the 
recovery  of  all  ? 

As  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  belief  in  Restoration 
and  kindred  doctrines  are  seen  to  spring,  in  different 
quarters,  in  the  wake  of  the  mitigated  form  of  the¬ 
ology  to  which  we  have  referred.  Not  that  such  be¬ 
liefs  are  logically  required.  All  a  priori  reasoning 
must  be  subject  to  the  correction  of  experience. 
There  is  a  terrible  reign  of  sin,  though  all  sin  is  con¬ 
trary  to  the  will  of  God  ;  there  is  a  development  of 
sinful  character,  a  hardening  of  the  heart,  a  persistent 
resistance — ‘ how  often  would  I  ...  .  but  ye  would 
not  ’  ;  ‘  woe  unto  thee,  Chorazin,  woe  unto  thee,  Beth- 
saida  :  ’  there  is  a  stern,  tragic  side  to  nature  and  to 
human  life.  We  stand  within  a  sphere  where  results 
are  not  worked  out  by  dint  of  power,  but  where  free¬ 
dom,  under  moral  lawT,  wdth  all  the  peril,  as  well  as 
possibility  of  good,  which  freedom  involves,  is  an 
essential  attribute  of  our  being.”  3  The  “  Andover 
Controversy”  is  another  link  in  this  historic  chain. 
Dr.  K.  A.  Park  has  demonstrated  that  according  to 
the  intent  of  the  founders  of  Andover  Theological 
Seminary  its  funds  must  be  used  to  promulgate  Cal- 
vinistic  doctrine.4  The  tendency  of  the  “New  De¬ 
parture  ”  is  certainly  toward  Universalism. 

3  “  New  Englander,”  1878.  Art.  “  The  Doctrine  of  Future  Punish¬ 
ment,”  pp.  192,  193. 

4  “  The  Associate  Creed  of  Andover  Theological  Seminary.” 


INDEX. 


Alexander,  W.  L . 14 

Alexander  .  .  23,  37,  48,  374 

Aikman . 14,  127 

Augustine  .  .  .  17,  3 r,  41 


Adams,  27,  49,  61,  172,  200-204 
Auburn  Declaration  .  .  38,  46 
Atwater  .  28,  58,  69,  220,  390 
Alford  .  .  .  76,  83,  85,  146, 

242,  292,  293,  295 


Aquinas . 1 18 

Alting . -119 

Aiken . 387 

Adams,  J.  C . 405 


Beza . .  18 

Baxter . 20,  121 

Breckenridge  .  .  .25,  37, 

48,  214,  342 

Baker  . 36 

Bates . 31,  321 

Barnes  .  .  49,  51,  58,  65,  ' 

77,  148,  212,  294,  364 

Boardman,  Prof.  G.  N  .  .  .70 

Berthold . 118 

Blackburn,  Prof.  W.  M.  .  124 

Briggs,  Prof.  C.  A.  .  .  .125 

Brown,  A.  W . 191 

Barrows  . 230 

Bushnell . 246 

Bailey . 274 

Bledsoe  . 288 

Bloomfield . 294 

Brown,  D . 295 

Burnett  . 356 

Ballou . 395,  398,  403 

Balfour . 403 


Charnock  .  .  .20,  32,  43, 

219,  281,  365,  374 

Crakanthorp . 19,  42 

Cochran . 57,  371 

Cook,  Prof.  J.  .  .  13,  107,  378 

Christlieb . 76,  389 

Cowles  .  .  .  155,  226,  230, 

235,  237,  241,  301,  366 
Causes  secondary  but  dim¬ 
ly  recognized  in  O.  T.  .  229 

Crosby . 243,  392 

Crane  . 253 

Cobb . 276,  280-289 

Cousin . 333 

Chambers . 396 

Cobb,  S . 403 

Capen . 406 


Dort,  Synod  of  .  .  18,  41,  119 
Dwight  .  .  .  .  21,  34,  53,  379 
Dick  .  22,  36,  45,  62,  129, 

217,  325,  33b 

335,  352 

Duffield  .  .  .26,  38,  129,  362 

Day  . 38 

Dabney  ....  72,  79,  86-100 
Dorner  .  .  101,  102,  345,  370 
Delitzsch  ....  76,  103,  389 
Death,  spiritual  meaning 

of . I49_I57 

Dodge . 405 

Edwards  27,  44,  64,  335- 

340,  346,  374 

Emmons  .  21,  35,  44,  58, 

123,  172,  187,  324,  342 
Emerson,  G.  H . 404 


Chalmers  .  .  .28,  65,  91,  Fisher,  Prof.  G.  P.  .  .  15, 


210,  337,  343  391,  4r4 

Calvin  .  .  .  31,  41,  96,  118,  Faber . 16 

170,  208,  325,  354  Fuller . 20 

P7 


418 


INDKX. 


Fitch, . 

Fiske,  D.  T.  .  . 
Future  Probation 
Fletcher  .  .  .  . 
Fairchild  .  .  .  . 
Fausset . 


.  .  91,  408 

.  24,  37,  356 
.  .  101-109 
....  161 
....  254 
....  300 


Gottschalk . 17 

Griffin,  22,  34,  44,  70,  124, 

129,  171,  327-329,  363,  381 

Green . 22,  35,  44 

Gill . 24,  215 

Gregg . 67 

Gess . 238 

Godet . 294 

Gaines . 404 

Gulliver,  Prof.  J.  P.  .  .  .411 


Hodge,  Charles,  14,  38,  50, 

78,  82,  1 13,  130,  147, 
152-156,  174,  241, 

299,  326,348,  351 
Helvetic  Second  Confession, 


18 

Hopkins,  S.  21,34,  45,  322, 

355,  374,  379 

Hodge,  A.  A.  28,  39,  50, 

175.  1 92-1 99,  384 

Howe . 22,  31,  173 

Hall,  R . 24 

Hickok  .  .  .  40,  229,  275,  364 

Hallam . 122 

Hoyt  ....  ....  126 

Hanna . 116 

Hopkins,  Mark . 167 

Henry . 209 

Harrison . '.  .  .  209 

Hagenbach . 349 

Hopkins,  S.  M . 349 

Haven,  J . 388 

Huntington . 403 

Hill  . 407 

Infant  Salvation  .  .  .  106-109 
Infralapsarianism  ....  349 

Jenkyns  . 245 

Jenks . 294 

Krauth . 113 

Kendall . 18 1 


Keith . 266 

Kendrick . 306 

Kant . 381 

Killen,  Prest . 390 


Lawrence  ....  24,  289,  363 
Lange  .  .  77,  164,  165,  31 2-315 
Lacroix . 267 


Leibnitz . 359 

Luther . 97 


Mason . 23 

Musgrave  ....  23,  35,  219 

Milner . 61,  174 

Miley,  Prof.  John  ....  101 

Munger . 102 

Martyr . 119 

Man  now  in  God’s  image,  156 

Mozlev . 211 

Murphy,  Prof.  J.  G.  .  .  .  236 

MacKnight . 241 

Martensen  . 248 

McCabe  .  .  249,  267-276,  371 

Meyer . 293,  296,  31 1 

Melancthon . 325 

McCosh  .  .  333,  335,  359,  389 

Murray . 401 

Miner  . 407 


Neander . .79,  146 

New'  Departure . 416 


Olshausen  .  .  .2x2,  257, 

297,  303-306 


Pictet . 26,  37,  45,  216 

Porter . 34 

Pascal . 167 

Probation,  Principles  of  a 

just  .  101-109 

Park . 234,  416 

Park  hurst  . . 319 

Pond . 397 

Patton . 401 

Patterson . 407 


Rice . 49,  80,  hi,  129 

Riddle,  Prof.  .  .  165,  314-318 

Rothe . 248-267 

Reid . 333 

Row . 391 


INDEX. 


419 


Rogers . 398 

Rich . 402 


Smith,  W.  D.  25, 

37,  61, 

173,  219 

Smith,  S.  S.  .  .  . 

•  •  26,  355 

Sladen . . 

•  43,  68,  170 

Smith,  H.  B.  .  .  , 

•  5!,  61,  324 

Symington  .  .  .  . 

....  68 

Secret  Will  of  God 

.  .  69,  70 

Smyth . 

....  103 

Swing  . 

...  .113 

Skinner,  Prof.  T.  H  .  .  .146 
Synergism,  a  Scriptural 

Doctrine  ...  .  147-158 

Shedd,  Prof.  W.  G.  T.  .  .  188 
Stuart  .  .  235,  297,  307-310, 396 
SchafF,  Prof.  P.  242,  315- 

318,  373 

Supralapsarianism  ....  349 
Shakespeare . 377 


Skinner . 395,  39s 

Streeter . 4°2 

Sweetser . 4°5 


Tobey . 10,  48,  147 

Toplady,  20,  33,  44,  69,  170 

218,  329-33! 

Tyler . 49,  210 

Tyndall,  Prof. . 66 

Twisse . 1 21 

Taylor,  N.  W . 129 

Tulloch . 156,  231 


Thayer,  T.  B . 394,  398 

Thomas . 400 

Venema,  27,  36,  46,  63,  172, 

184-192,  209,  326 

Wesley,  John . 4,  398 

Westminster  Con.  of  Faith, 

19,  33,  42,  57,  96, 

107,  1 '5 

Williard . 20,  32,  46 

Witherspoon . 21 

Wood,  J . 24 

Withington . 26 

Woods,  L.  26,  39,  no,  173,  396 

Wilson  . 43 

Watts  .  .  62,  122,  176-184,  326 
Wright,  Prof.  G.  F.  .  107,  364 
Whedon,  108,  160,  222,  242, 

258,  286,  287 
Westminster  Assembly, 

1 20-1 2 2 

Woodbridge . 212 

Weisse . 248 

Whately . 261 

Watson . 288 

Webster,  D . 377 

Wuttke . 390 

Williamson . 395,  399 

Whittemore . 395 

Winchester . 402 

Whitney . 403 

Xavier . 134 

Zanchius . 118 


I  'iff  'mi  theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1  .1012  01012  7449 


DATE  DUE 

HIGHSMITH  * 

15230 

Printed 
in  USA 

